Maoists likely to profit as democracy goes into suspension
Before he was crowned in the wake of a 2001 royal massacre, King Gyanendra was an enthusiastic conservationist of the Hindu kingdom's mountainous wilds.
Most of those wild Himalayan areas are now under the control of Nepal's increasingly ominous Maoist insurgency. Many believe that Tuesday?s move, in which Gyanendra announced he was suspending democracy in order to save it, will only add grist to the Maoist mill.
The king is likely to seek direct talks with the Maoists, without having to consult what he sees as Kathmandu's incorrigibly venal political class.
Nevertheless, the palace coup is only likely to enhance the credibility of the Maoists, one of whose demands is abolition of the monarchy.
Many among Nepal's mainstream population will see Gyanendra?s move as a transparent attempt to aggrandise power for its own sake.
Scepticism about Gyanendra?s attitude to power dates from the moment his brother, Birendra, was killed by crown-prince Dipendra (who then allegedly turned the gun on himself) in June 2001. Many in Nepal still give credence to the rumours that King Gyanendra himself, or Paras, his deeply unpopular son, who was present at the palace massacre, were in some way involved.
"It doesn't matter whether the conspiracy theory is true or not - and there is not much evidence to support it," says S.D. Muni, an academic of modern Nepal, based in New Delhi. "What matters is how many people believe it - Gyanendra and his son are deeply disliked among large sections of Nepalis."
There is little doubt that the standing of the monarch in Nepal has plummeted since Gyanendra took the throne. Whereas Birendra's portrait was hanging in almost every home, King Gyanendra's likeness is notable in its rarity.
The monarch?s dwindling popularity has not been assisted by the antics of Paras, his only son and official heir, whose reputation for drunken thuggery is undisputed. "The Most Feared Man in Nepal", is the cover story headline on this month's issue of one magazine in New Delhi.
But Nepal's media, which, during the reign of King Birendra, had been reluctant to indulge in any criticism of the monarchy, has published regular accounts of incidents in which Paras has allegedly beaten up people in Kathmandu nightclubs and, in one case, killed a motorcyclist in a drink-driving accident.
As a royal, Paras can only be prosecuted by consent of the king. "Paras is a bad apple, plain and simple," said a Nepalese businessman close to the family. "He has done incalculable damage to the royal family."
But any such fall-out pales in comparison to the monarch?s gamble in suspending democracy for three years.
According to friends, the king is an intelligent man who would have anticipated international condemnation of the move. Furthermore, many sympathise with King Gyanendra's frustration over the corrupt character of Nepal's political parties.
But to justify his action, the king will need to settle with the Maoists and build a "genuine" democracy in Nepal.
Even assuming it were possible to accomplish either of these tall orders, doing so would risk the abolition of what traditional Nepalis believe is his family's divine right to rule.
According to tradition, Nepal's king is seen as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu - the preserver. After yesterday, some will jest Gyanendra would be a more fitting avatar of Shiva - the destroyer.
source:
www.ft.com (Edward luce)
