It would be an overstatement to say that it came as a surprise but it was enough to give any thinking person some jitters. The “champions of democracy” of Nepal, who legitimised themselves as supra constitutional and claim to hold the reigns of the country did not dare open their mouths when Prachanda, sitting in the country’s command station, slammed the system and vilified the army. Ironically this came at a time when Baluwatar is at its zenith of power. Finally after a week of silence the rebuff, which was long overdue, came from the army itself. But this time a senior minister in the government was quick to retort, accusing the army of trying to disrupt the peace talks !!
The politicians seem to have forgotten (if not foolishly undermined) the Army’s role in arriving at this point. No matter how hoarse they shout about the army’s role in suppressing “andolaan 06”, the fact remains that the army was the only institution that had the capability to counter the rebels, when the party cadres were being mercilessly killed throughout the last decade. And it was the only force that protected the party leaders for a decade, when they were holed up in Kathmandu.
The parties have always been suspicious of the army, mainly because the ghost of 1960 never ceased to haunt them. But history shows that the party leaders have been, by design or by virtue of naivety, terrible managers, especially when it comes to the armed forces. It is also a common knowledge that at many instances, irresponsible dealings and blatant political intrusions and pressures in the working affairs of the armed forces has invoked ire of the servicemen against the political leaders. One can always marvel at the folly of the leaders, never even to attempt to take the security forces in confidence.
The story starts in 1991 when Krishna Prasad Bhattarai headed the interim government and Yog Prasad Upadhyay was the Home Minister. The inability of the
Home Ministry to give orders to fire in defence to the police when attacked by unruly mob resulted in lynching of nine police personnel. The incident sparked a police revolt. Timely intervention by the palace and specific orders given to the “right persons” by Late King Birendra is said to have averted what could result into a major crisis. The incident was never reported to the public and in absence of vibrant media the story never leaked beyond certain circles.
Attempt at making the security forces, especially the police, answerable to the people never ensued. Rather the parties started taking key officers under their wings and using them for their political advantage. One of the more popular examples is the huge controversy regarding the appointments of Inspector General of Police, Achyut Krishna Kharel and Dhurva Bahadur Pradhan in 1997. A big fiasco was created when the new UML-RPP (Chand) government unceremoniously fired Kharel, who was considered close to the Congress party and appointed Dhurva Bahadur Pradhan instead. This incident is important to note, because it depicts the insecurity and the mistrust of the party politicians in the security institution.
Time and again some political parties, including the UML, had expressed reservations while the issue of bringing the army under the parliament was raised when Congress party had the full majority. Madhav Kumar Nepal has gone on record saying that he feared that the army would be dictated and operated by the majority party in the parliament and would be used to crush the oppositions. While parties themselves could never agree on the issue of bringing the army under the parliament, the politicians never ceased to vilify the army of being loyal to the palace and palace as not letting the parties work in this direction. One wonders whether they were always so keen on bringing the armed forces under the parliament. What had prevented them to pass a bill with the approval of 2/3 majority in the parliament at the time?
In 1998, Prime Minister Grija Prasad Koirala gave a go ahead to the infamous Kilo Serra I and II and Romeo operations, even though he was fully aware that the police force was not trained and equipped to handle insurgency. Although, Koirala supporters have attributed this decision to the “wish” (of Late King Birendra) not to unleash the army against its own people, there is little doubt that it was due to Koirala’s inability to trust the army. Even later, when the police operation spelled disaster, Koirala decided to create a new force rather then entrust the army with the job of fighting insurgents. Hence, the Armed Police Force (APF) was born.
The AFP was the baby of the Nepali Congress. Kum Bahadur Khadka, when home minister, was even accused of filling the rank and file of this new fighting force with his loyalists and supporters. But it did not take long before disenchantment grew in this new force against the government. The very ranks and file of the APF grew agitated because of corrupt practices of the Ministers, which resulted in risking the lives of the men fighting insurgents. After every big defeat of the APF, allegations of Ministers misappropriating the arms funds and political intrusion in decision making had surfaced. One of the more serious allegations that surfaced after an APF base in Satbariya, West Nepal was run over by the Maoists in April 2002 was that Home Minister, Khum Bahadur Khadka had forced them to rent the building he owned there, despite the officers’ repeated pleas, that the location was strategically vulnerable.
The story of now suspended APF chief Sahabir Thapa, shortly after the Satbariya incident, verbally abusing Khum Bahadur Khadka, in Nepalgunj airport in front of everyone and challenging Khadka to fire him if he could, is well known in security circles.
Only few months before the above-mentioned incident, the biggest controversy ever regarding the Army had occurred. Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala had resigned, openly accusing the army of not obeying his orders. The Maoists from Holleri, Rolpa had abducted 71 police personnel in July 2001 and according to news reports the government had decided to mobilize the army against the Maoists. Radio Nepal went on for several days blaring that the Army had surrounded the Maoists in Jungles around Budhagaon area and rumours started going around Kathmandu that hundreds of Maoists were killed. But nothing had happened. Later actual fact emerged. The army had surrounded the Maoists and taken position but never opened fire despite orders from the government. Army always took a stand that the orders did not come a) from the right quarters and b) in a written form.
Whereas doubts can also be raised at the army’s intention, it appears that the inability of Koirala to give orders through the right channels and his refusal to give a written command gave way to the incident. According to the 1990 Constitution, the army could function only when decisions of the Defence Council and the Cabinet was endorsed by the supreme commander of the army. Allegedly, Koirala never referred any documents regarding deploying the army to the King nor give any written orders to the Chief of Army Staff.
Whatever the case, Koirala rather than try to facilitate the correct procedure, chose to lash out at the army and the palace and then resigned. The political party circle then became rife with the rumour that the “Maoists was run by the palace to undermine democracy”.
The political parties always saw the security forces as threats. Even as they held the seats of power and even as hundreds of young security personnel lost their lives in defence of democracy and the very Constitution, the political parties drafted. The leaders could never treat the security forces as their own.
At present the parties argue that because of the army, the King could take power in 2005 But have they given a single moment of thought as to why the Nepal Police whom the very leaders had taken under their wings and their own baby, the APF were more than happy to lock them behind bars? Now even after they have deprived the monarchy of all powers and claim total legitimacy and claim to have brought the army under parliament, why do they still accuse the army of doing things that the government disapproves?
If the army is under the parliament and under the command of the government, isn’t it the government’s responsibility to refute any unfounded allegations made by the rebels ? If the government had issued a statement as soon as Prachanda made the allegations would there be any need for the army to say anything? How can allegations of a rebel leader, who still commands a militia force fighting the State, not be rebuffed ? Have the political parties given the decision of running a country to Prachanda, so that he can decide on the number of armed forces of the country?
If Nepal had only 20,000 troops as suggested by Prachanda then do the political parties think that they would still be making deals with the Maoists today? Would the people be “democratically” protesting in the street fighting autocracy? Would the Maoists ever agree to come up in democratic set up of governance?
The present government has already made a mistake by directing the Army to drop fresh recruitments and cancel its arms orders, even as the Maoists are on a "donation" drive and abduction spree. The Government has already started efforts to leash the military and release the jailed rebels, while getting nothing in return except promises from the Maoists. True Prachanda came out in the open for the first time and expressed his commitments but no confidence building measures has been taken from the Maoists so far.
Another mistake of the government has been to let the rebel leader vilify the army openly. This is alienating the army, which has promised to remain under the jurisdiction of parliament. It was this inaction of the government that forced the army to make a statement for its own defence. Yet another blunder has been to accuse the army of trying to disrupt the on-going talks. True, a ray of hope for peace exists but have the leaders thought what will happen if the talks fail and armed attacks resumes? By criticizing the army, even after the State authority is completely under the parliament and the cabinet, the government is not doing anything more than advertising its own myopia, incompetence and folly.
No comments:
Post a Comment