The king's takeover of power on February 1, 2005, appears to have compounded analready complex situation. Even as the Communist Party of Nepal - Maoist rebelsdeclare that their movement against the monarchy has arrived at its 'penultimatestage', the international community has turned up pressure on the king torestore multi-party democracy and the fundamental rights of citizens. The king,however, has clearly reiterated his intention to continue his 'direct' rule foranother 'few' (three) years, as he proposed in his proclamation on February 1,2005.
Major political party leaders, including Nepali Congress (NC) President,Girija Prasad Koirala, and Communist Party of Nepal (UML) General Secretary,Madhav Kumar Nepal, are still under house arrest, and many others are underdetention by the security forces (SFs) to prevent the parties from organizingany protests against the king's 'take over'. After five agitating politicalparties announced demonstrations against the king across the country on March 8,over 750 political leaders and activists were reportedly arrested in the courseof protests on March 15, and another 300 on March 20.
The Maoists have also sought to demonstrate their capacities under thecircumstances, and 'Chairman', Pushpa Kamal Dahal @ 'Prachanda', has announced asuccession of general strikes, 'wheel-jam' agitations, shutdowns and blockadesat the local and regional level thrice since February 1, 2005. A 'generalstrike' was announced for three days from February 3-5, followed by a 13-dayblockade from February 13-26 and the countrywide 'mass mobilization and militaryresistance' between March 14 to April 1.
This is to be followed by a countrywidegeneral shutdown from April 2 to April 22, coinciding with the anniversary ofthe 'historic' Mass Movement Day of 1990. These blockades have generated acuteproblems for the people, who are already facing severe privations in thisunderdeveloped and impoverished country. Business sources claims that lossesduring the blockades are incalculable, running into hundreds of millions ofrupees a day. A Kathmandu Research Center study claimed that each Nepali incursa loss of about Rs. 47 and the nation as a whole Rs. 1 billion, in losses fromeach day of banda or general strike. Neither the government nor the Maoistsappear to have taken the people's plight into consideration.
An analysis of the pattern of earlier blockades suggests that the Maoistdomination in the districts is clearly advancing from the Mid-western to theWestern region, and then again penetrating the Central region of Nepal. Duringthe whole of the year 2004, the Maoists imposed more than 38 blockades, generalstrikes, economic blockades, transport obstructions, etc., of varyingintensities and in different areas. In all such actions, they systematicallyincluded at least one or more of the 'zones' that linked Kathmandu to the restof the country. At least on two occasions in 2004, they succeeded in imposing asevere blockade of the Kathmandu Valley (August 18-24, 2004) and on majorcompanies and industries (August 15- September 15), which have createdwidespread disruption across wide areas of the country.
However, a succession of strong SF operations in and around the Kathmandu Valleythrough 2004 decimated the leaders and cadres of the Maoist 'Special Task Force'operating in the Valley. Moreover, with the high concentration of SFs in theValley since February 1, 2005, Maoist activities in the Valley and the 'RingArea' - which includes Bagmati, Narayani and Janakpur zones - have beensubstantially curbed.
While information flows from Nepal are currently severelylimited, official sources have revealed that Phulchowki in Lalitpur has beentargeted by the Maoists trying to establish a base in the outer ring of theValley, and they are also attempting to establish a base at Dhulikhel inKavrepalanchowk, a district adjacent to the Kathmandu Valley, to launch attacksin Capital and its 'ring areas'. The potential for such attacks wreakingextraordinary direct damage is, however, small, and the Maoist objective in thecapital region is currently more focused on engineering a wider economiccollapse.
This is a more realistic strategy. The insurgents overwhelmingly dominate thethree major highways of the country - Mahendra, Prithvi and Tribhuvan - and havethe capacity to shut down the economy virtually at will. During the blockade ofFebruary 13 to 26, SF patrol teams and helicopters guarding vehicles travelingon these barely succeeded in keeping a fraction of the normal traffic flowing,primarily to keep the supply chain to the capital open.
Traffic on other routeswas severely curtailed, with virtually no movement in the farther districts. Themajor trade routes that connect Kathmandu to the rest of the country were themost vulnerable to Maoist attacks due to the low presence of security forces inthe eastern, western, mid-western and far-western regions. The insurgentsplanted bombs and cut down trees to block transport on these highways during thestrikes and blockades. The Maoists 'strategic offensive' focuses on what theycall 3-Sa (in Nepali) Sadak, Sadarmukkam and Sahar, that is, roads, districtheadquarters and cities.
There is further evidence to confirm that the Maoists do not seek a significantconfrontation with Kathmandu in the foreseeable future. Limited informationflows indicate that clashes between the Maoists and the Army have occurredprimarily in the border districts and few hill districts.
The Army'scounter-insurgency operations have chiefly concentrated in Dailekh, Kailali,Achham and Baitadi in the Far Western Region; Kapilabastu, Argakhanchi andGorkha in the Western Region; and Siraha, Solukhumbu, Sankhuwasabha, Bhojpur,Ilam, Sunsari, Morang and Jhapa in Eastern Region. There has also been someaerial bombardment of the hills of western Nepal, particularly in Rolpa, Rukum,Salyan, Jajorkot and Kalikot. Since the February 1, security forces have killedat least 249 Maoists in various operations across the country.
Maoist activities, on the other hand, have been prominent in the Bardia, Banke,Kailali, Argakhanchi, Kapilavastu, Rupandehi, Nawalparasi, Bara, Sarlahi,Saptari, Sunsari, Morang, Panchthar, Nuwakot and Dhading districts. Maoistsources have, moreover, claimed that they have inflicted a large number ofcasualties on the SFs and seized significant numbers of arms during clashes inMorang, Danusha, Bardiya, Kailali and Ilam. The Maoists have also detonatedpowerful explosives and caused heavy losses at the offices of the Nepal TelecomCompany, District Survey Office and District Forest Office in the eastern townof Inaruwa in Sunsari district on March 16.
On the ground, consequently, there is little evidence of any majortransformation in immediate favour either of Kathmandu, or of the Maoists.
In the meanwhile, international pressure has increased substantially for therestoration of democracy and the multi-party system. India, UK and USA, Nepal'sstrongest supporters in the pre-February 1 phase, have made their positionsabundantly clear. The European Union and some constituent countries, such asSwitzerland, have expressed their strong disappointment at the 'royal takeover'and the 'escalation' of conflict. This disapproval has, in many cases, resultedin the suspension of financial aid (in addition to military aid suspension byIndia, USA and UK).
Thus, on March 17, the British government suspended part ofthe aid it had pledged to the Nepal Police, Prison Services and the PrimeMinister's Office. The British International Development Minister, GarethThomas, stated, "In the current environment we consider it inappropriate tocontinue support to Nepal… We need to ensure that our programmes will continueto benefit poor and excluded people in Nepal." A total of Pounds 2.4million had been committed under these programmes, but Pounds 1.3 millionremained unspent and will now reportedly be cancelled.
Similarly, Finland's government announced that assistance to Nepal would depend on democraticstability, adding, "Development is impossible in any country withoutdemocracy." Strong reservations have been expressed by the internationalcommunity on the possibility of aid money being used to purchase arms andequipment for the SFs.
Earlier, two of Nepal's major institutional donors hadstrongly criticized the prevailing security and political situation. On February25, the World Bank informed the Nepal government that it was suspending its US$70 million budgetary support for the current fiscal year, on the grounds that"extremely slow implementation of agreed reform measures has compelled totake such a decision." On March 9, the World Bank stated further thatcontinued assistance to Nepal would depend on the government's demonstratedcommitment and capacity to implement reforms.
Asian Development Bank (ADB)country director in Kathmandu, S. Hafeez Rahman, also warned that, in view ofthe recent political and security developments in the Himalayan kingdom, it wasreviewing the implications for its on-going operations and stated, "ADB hasnot been able to field operational missions in the past few weeks. ADB's ongoingoperations will critically depend on how the security situation evolves."The ADB has pledged to provide $121 million to Nepal to gear up its developmentinitiatives.
USA had also suspended arms supplies to Nepal along with India and UK, though ithad initially assured continuance of assistance for developmental works.However, the US Ambassador to Nepal, James F. Moriarty, has clarified that theUS government is reassessing the current political scenario even for developmentassistance. During the meeting between Indian Foreign Minister, Natwar Singh,and the visiting US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on March 16, India andUS expressed "complete agreement" and stated that nothing short offull and early restoration of multiparty democracy in Nepal would satisfy them.Meanwhile, the Swiss government decided to table the Nepal issue for discussionat the ongoing 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights inGeneva. Britain has expressed support for this move.
There has, however, been limited relief for Kathmandu, and qualified hopes ofmore to come, as new and at least some dubious players step into the breach. OnMarch 7, the Japanese government agreed to extend over US$ 17 million to Nepalas Non-Project Grant Aid and for the increase of food production. More suspect,is Pakistan's offer of arms supplies and military training to Nepal to supportits fight against the Maoists on March 11. The offer includes "anythingfrom boots for its (Nepal's) 80,000 soldiers to helicopters to ferry troops andattack guerrilla hideouts in rugged hills and jungles."
King Gyanendra has also been assiduously wooing Beijing, and just before the'royal takeover', Nepal had shut down the office of the Dalai Lama'sRepresentative in Nepal as well as the Tibetan Refugee Welfare office in thecapital Kathmandu. Nepal has eagerly reiterated its 'unequivocal support' forthe anti-secession legislation enacted by the Chinese National People'sCongress, asserting that it would contribute to achieving the goal ofreunification with Taiwan, and that, "in conformity with its (Nepal's)long-held one-China policy," Nepal considers Taiwan an integral part ofChina.
China has, since February 1, maintained that Nepal's problems are an'internal affair' and has expressed concern on the Maoist insurgency. On March17, Nepal's Foreign Ministry sources said that the possible sale of arms byBeijing would be discussed during Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing's visitto the country at the end of March. Since the beginning of the present crisisprovoked by the 'king's coup', the dominant apprehension, particularly in India,has been that Pakistan and China would use the opportunity to fish in troubledwaters.
As has been arguedbefore, restoration of military supplies to the SFs in Nepal fromeither traditional or new sources cannot contribute significantly to therestoration of order and the state's authority, though it may give the king thecapacity to challenge the broad international consensus and keep democracy infetters for a little longer. While much appears to be happening in Nepal almostfrom day to day, little is changing in terms of the fundamentals of theconflict.
P.G. Rajamohan is Research Associate, Institute for Conflict Management. Courtesy, the South Asia Intelligence Review of the South Asia TerrorismPortal
