|
One step Toward a Brighter Future
:
The pro-Democracy Movement in Nepal 1990-91
-By Saroj Pant
Has democracy really arrived in Nepal ? people have gained some significant
political rights, but with certain limitations. They have obtained the
right to organize mass meetings, demonstrate, and deliver speeches and to
have a free press. The ban on political parties has been abolished. Now,
the prossive and democratic parties may freely organize the people in
order to construct a new society, and they can carry their messages directly
to thousands of people through mass meetings. But still such rights, which
have been obtained only through struggle, are not yet legally guaranteed.
A new constitution has yet to be drafted that can pave the way for economic
equity, social justice and individual liberty. Such a constitution is
also the route to a real democracy.
Can we achieve real democracy ? Will the reactionary ultra rightists remain
silent and accept this defeat ? Isn't it possible that the Royal palace,
which has stories of conspiracy in its every brick, will engage itself
in weaving a new web ? Can the political parties that created and countercharges
sustain the current political integrity seen among them ? If they can't
what will the outcome be ? Since politics always strolls behind the economic
what plans do the political parties have to strengthen.
Our economy?
These shocking questions are the concern of every thinking person in this
new climate of openness. But before going forward, perhaps it would be
useful to recall those days that have already become part of history.
In the midst of celebration at midnight, April 8, 1990 Nepal television
aired a special news bulletin, announcing that the word "partylessness"
had been struck from the constitution, and the bulletin the leaders of
the pro-democracy movement, Krishna Prasad Bhattari, Sahana Pradhan, Girija
Prasad Koirala, and Radha Krishna Mainali, declared in their first-ever
joint televised interview that the democracy movement had now come and
end.
But, oh no ! This was not acceptable. The people were dissatisfied that
the movement had ended with so little achieved because more than 200 people
had died and thousands had been injured by police brutality in the democracy
struggle1. still they struggle that had lasted for 50 years was ended.
Two days earlier, more than 100,000 people had demonstrated against the
royal proclamation of 6th April and a state curfew had been imposed amidst
street clashes between the agitators and police.
Police suppression has been rising dramatically. The Army's interference
in the common work had been increasing. The situation was gradually causing
the people to be mentally prepared to raise arms. Even though the proclamation
of the multi-party democracy had now been made, the people were still
ready to face army guns. Caring little for the army personnel armed with
automatic rifles, youths came out shouting the slogan: "whose victory
is this ?? The people's !!! " Ten people were martyred that day by
army gunfire2.
That was a sleepless night of joy and sorrow for most of the Nepalese.
A new and different morning was awaiting them with vermillion and garlands.
Nearly 300,000 people formed a victorious procession in the streets of
the capital. Almost no one was gloomy on this occasion. Even the foreign
tourists in Nepal participated in this happiest moment. All felt how strong
and deep-rooted was the desire for liberty in human beings. people forgot
for the moment that Nepal is one of the poorestcountries in the world.
But the leaders had not closed their eyes to this reality. At an unprecedented
mass meeting at Tundikhel open Theater on the eve of 9th April, 1990,
the leaders warned us that the movement would not end there -that it was
only changing form. The advent of a real democracy would not come until
and unless the living standard of each and every Nepali improved and Nepalis
were no longer compelled to shed sorrowful tears. The word "partylessness"
had been wiped out of the constitution and parties had become free to
act, but the corpse of panchayat was still hanging in front of us.
The interim government, consisting of the Nepali Congress and the United
Leftist Front, helped the corpse of panchayat to begin to decay. All the
village, town, district and national panchayats, the panchayat policy
and Investigation Committee, class organizations, and the sport council
were dissolved. The post of Chief Zonal officer was suspended. But the
backbone of panchayat still existed -- that is in the form of an economic
network developed by countiers, landlords, elites, smugglers, commission
agents, bribe receivers, brokers, crooked businessmen and corrupt industrialists.
This network could obstruct us again and again until and unless it was
disbanded. So it became vital that the whole property of countiers, veteran
ex-panchas, high-ranking bureaucrats, corrupt administrators and smugglers
be investigated without the least delay. The illegally accumulated property
had to be nationalized and the funds spent on welfare programmes. Otherwise
the former network would not only affect the coming election, but it would
also enslave the new democracy by making large donations to the political
parties. This could happen whether or not the government of Krishna Prasad
Bhattarai, the "Saint," was thinking about it.
Another threat came from a faction of ultra leftists who believed that
the movement had ended only in a deceptive agreement with the monarchy.
Perhaps they were highly encouraged by the anti-monarchy street domonstrations
in Kathmandu on 6th April, 1990.
The Ghost of padma Shamsher
Democracy is not something to be established in a day. The Nepalese people
have been in continuous struggle for 50 years to achieve the goal of democracy.
Fifty more years will be needed to consoliddate it. The people's movement
of 1950-51 overthrew the autocratic Rana regime. The major achievements
of this movement were that the people gained the right to draft a new
constitution; sovereignty went from the rulers to the people; the King
became constitutionalized; and a new government with popularly elected
representatives was formed.
But there was a gang of reactionaries that had enjoyed power for a long
time so they didn't allow this new democratic environment to flourish
in the country. Unfortunately, the young political parties were too inexperienced
to act according to the demands of the time. Rather they narrowed themselves
in power, struggle and more disunity. Such an uncertain political situation
turned fruitful to King Mahendra who, on December 15, 1960, dissolved
the popularly elected government with the help of the Royal Army. The
King declared the monarch as sovereign and outside the reach of all commoners.
The democratic leaders were arrested and imprisoned. Several leaders were
exiled, while political activists were killed in a number of deceptive
ways.
A coalition between the reactionaries and opportunists from the Nepali
Congress and communist party formally established the panchayat system
under so-called active leadership of the king. Actually it was the same
political system that had been unsuessfully proposed by Padma Sumsher
in 1947. so it would not be wrong to describe the panchayat system as
the modernized edition of the Rana regime or the final appendix to the
feudal epoch.
The opposition political parties became more fragile due to their outlawed
position, massive arrests, killings, exilings and suppression. The palace
followed the Machiavellian policy of suppressing the democrats by giving
the upper hand to the leftists and vice versa and by giving the upper
hand to the leftists and vice versa and by distancing itself from panchayat
activities. This proved a very successful policy. And the palace enjoyed
absolute power with the real application of the imperialistic precept
"divide and rule."
The opposition parties were also gradually weakned because their activists
had middle-class feudalistic tastes and lower bourgeois characters. The
communists broke into dozens of factions, less because of the divisions
in the global communist movement.
Struggles were launched against the panchayat regime during all three
decades, but these struggles were launched without any alignment between
the congress and the communists. Unity was essential between the democrats
and the communists to overthrow the panchayat autocracy which was armoured
by the army, police and administration, and was blessed with imperial
powers. But there was no basis for unity as both parties were suspicious
of each other's leadership and were engaged in inner clashes on principles,
on top of their doubts about each other.
It was the contemporary global situation that made it possible for the
movement to finally achieve success on a large scale. It happened only
through a called jointly by both parites, turned into a massive popular
movement.
In governing politics, the authoritarian system and its patrons--the dictators--
has been compelled to face a fate of gradual decline. The capitalists,
communists and the religious conservative authoritarians have lost ground
in the political arena. The Cold War ended dramatically when the Soviet
Union and the United States each other with friendly handshakes. In response,
dictators from all over the world, backed by the superpowers in order
to secure their own domination, began to be ousted. The wave of democracy
from Eastern Europe had a global influence. The tragic decline of the
Romanian ruler N. Ceausescu had a great impact on the Nepalese people.
Another factor influencing the start of the movement was the deterioration
in relations between Nepal and India from March 1989 onwards. The corruption,
financila scandals and price hikes crossed all the limits. The erstwhile
Marichman government tried to raise anti-Indian feeling and ultranationalism
instead of seeking a far-reaching real soluation to the problem. The anti-people
opportunists took advantage of this chaotic situation to loot the national
property, such as deforesting the Terai.
Corruption, bribery, commission-cult and smuggling had nearly been institutionalized
during the 30 years of the panchayat regime. And now it became a well-known
fact that all such activities were practiced under the patronage of the
Royal palace. Most of the grants and loans provided by international agencies
on the basis of lthe poverty and miserable lifestyle of the Nepalese people.
Some of the grants and loans were also used for political suppression.
The disparity between economic groups became greater and greater, and
the commoners became poorer and even more exploited. These economic evils
paved the way for the final political explosion.
In 1980, the king called for a referendum in order to prove that panchayat
was popularly supported system and not one that was forced on the country.
This referendum, contrary to the aspirations of conservatives, divided
the politics of the country into two distinct factions: the partyless
and the followers of the multi-party system. After some time, panchayat
was led toward autocracy which however was its natural state. A number
of fundamental rights, e.g. to the right to organize, hold mass meetings
and demonstrate, and the right to free press and publication, were ruthlessly
diminished. Even the so-called liberal panchas did't have such rights
to forward their "liberal" policies.
The activists from opposition parties were not even allowed to donate
their blood, help plant tree palntations or clean the streets. panchayat
was so inhuman that it didn't even permit the opposition parties to assist
the sufferers of a disastrouss earthquake (Monsoon, 1988).
The political parties were suffocating in such a situation, and the need
for a massive nationwide movement was recognized all over the country.
On January 15, 1990 seven different communist factions came together to
form a United Left Front (ULF) representing Manmohan, Tulsilal, Rohit
the Fourth Convention, and CPN (ML) factions. CPN (Masal), CPN (Mashal),
and other smaller left factions formed another front -- the United National
people's Movement (UNPM).
On the other hand the Nepali congress (NC) convened its national conference
on Autumn 1990 challenging the restrictions put in place by panchayat
government. This conference was attended by all the major communist parties.
The conference also paved the way for a unity-in-action coalition between
NC and ULF. Leaders like Chandrasekhar, Subramanyam Swami, and Dr. M.
Faro Surjeet Singh from India were also invited to the conference. Their
attendance and some portions of their delivered speeches were interpreted
as foreign interference by the Panchayat government, and millions of rupees
from the national fund were used to bring people to the capital for so-called
pancha rallies.
The Issue of Monarchy
The new democratic movement was launched formally on February 18, 1990
under the leadership of Nepali Congress Supremo Ganesh Man Singh. The
outlawed parties demanded mainly four things: The end of the Panchayat
system, the establishment of a multi-party democracy, the formation of
a national government, and general elections on a multi-party basis under
the same government. It was obvious that the movement would come to an
end only with an agreement that acknowledge its main demands, its leading
powers and national, as well as international, support.
Thousands of people went into the streets and demostrated all over the
country carrying NC's four-star flag and comunist flags with the sickle
and hammer despite strict official vigilance.
plans were made for the whole movement to be completed in three different
stages, but before the completion of the second stage, the home arrest
of the leaders, the mass arrests of activities, the ruthless police torture
and the launched massacre by the security forces marred badly the spread
of the movement.
Nevertheless the movement gradually covered the urban areas and spread
into the villages. International media and human rights organizations
published more and more information about the ruthless suppression of
the rulling elite, and this helped to gain worldwide support for the pro-democracy
movement. From 3rd Chaitra onwards, the intellectuals took command, with
doctors, lawyers, professors, teachers, students, literary figures, journalists,
pilots, engineers and even civil servants coming out into the streets.
After that nearly each and every individual was affected by the movement
and it advanced as a people's movement. Citizens from patan and kirtipur
declared their territoties as independent republics. This rapidly increasing
activity shocked the rulers, and even the political parties seemed suprisee
at the development of the movement. People's aspirations and their demands
went on increasing. A massive protest rally on 24th Chaitra, in which
slogans even against the King and the monarchy were raised repeatedly,
expressed the people's indignation.
The conservatives said that the movement blamed the Royal palace too harsly.
But the question is, who was responsible? The palace could not get over
the idea that the whole country was its inherited property and the Nepalese
people, its tenants. Forty nine days after the formal launching of the
movement, the King finally paid a surprise tribute to the martyrs. Yet
when the whole country was inflamed with the fulfillment of democratic
aspirations, the royal couple went on a "private visit" to Pokhara.
The King himself had nartured the panchayat system by terming it a "reformed
system," or a "common umbrella," or even a "popularly
supported" system. Therefore it was natural for people to grow indignant
about such royal insensitivity. Fortunately the popular demand was limited
to establishing a constitutional monarchy and at that point the movement
had not turned absolutely against the monarchy.
Women in black strips
Women's participation in this movement also deserves to be mentioned.
Nearly all of the early struggles for democracy were incomplete, since
half the country's population did not participate in them. But this movement
to some extent proved untrue the accusation that the Nepalese women did
not have the least political consciousness. Although the number of women
participants in the movement was small compared to the total number of
women in the country, it was symbolic enough. The mass arrests, massacres
and police torture of their innocent relatives compelled them to go against
the establishment. Women like anaki Devi Yadav, Bhuwaneshwari Devi Yadav,
Sonawati Yadav, Gyani Shobha Bajracharya, Pampha Deve Khadaki, and Rekha
Rijil irrigated the movement with their blood.
Police along with the mandated holligans raided the girls' hostel of Prithiwi
Narayan campus, Pokhara, just on the eve of the movement 12th February,
1990 act that was criticized sharply all over the country. As a result,
this incident developed into a sentimental fertilizer for the movement.
Student leader Laxmi Karki, who police tortured most ruthlessly among
the activists arrested, became almost a legend. On 22 February, in Biratnagar,
women demostrated at a mute protest rally with black strips on their mouths.
This demonstration was led by the lawyers Sushila Karki and Madhavi Rimal.
A memorable incident took place on March 8th, a day which is known as
women's day throughout the world. In 1910 women representatives from the
different developed nations had gathered in the Danish capital, Copenhagen,
where they dicussed topics such as the working hours of women. At this
same convention they decided to convene every year at that time and to
declare March 8th as International Women's Day.
In 1990 women from different parts of Nepal launched various programmes
on 8th March. Nearly 500 women organized a mass meeting at padma kanya
campus, Kathmandu, with black flags as well as black strips on their arms.
Women leaders like Meena Poudel, Kamala Pant, Hisila Yami, Aruna Upreti,
Suprava Ghimire, Kalyani Shah, and Parijat addressed the audience on "women's
role and responsibility in social change."
Not only intellectual women but also the common working women participatedin
the movement. Women ranging from 70 years old to the girls of 10 years
came out into the streets in places like Patan and Kirtipur. Most women
are part of the exploited class in a country like Nepal where the economic
gap between men and women is wide. Since they are also victims of male
domanation even within the family, women are the sufferers from both sides.
So any movement targeted towards social change remains incomplete without
the true involvement of women.
Blows from the Diehards
The reactionary forces conspired to stop the movement even after the proclamation
of the multiparty democracy on 8th April, 1990.
A veteran pancha, Lokendra Bahadur Chand, was nomited as the premier and
his government was mostly made up defamed diehards like Pashupati Shamsher
the "Grand-son-General." The chand government actually was no
more than a ruse to continue panchayat. But the people's vigilance was
extremely sharp and it absolutely crushed the reactionary conspiracies.
In fact the people were always in the forefront of the movement with even
the ULF, NC, and UNPM remaining behind the public
.
Under great public pressure, an interim government of eleven members was
formed on April 19, 1990 It consisted of the representatives from the
NC, ULF, nonaligned intellectuals and the palace. The reactionaries continued
to try to foil the interim government. The hooligans terrorized the country
with killings, thefts, conflagrations and vandalism. They tried to handicap
the interim government by provoking trouble between the police and the
public, as well as by inciting the workers and civil servants to go on
strike.
Now after all their plotting has failed, the reactionaries have changed
their tune. Figures like Marichman and NavaRaj (premier and president
of the National panchayat respectively during the movement) now favour
multi-party democracy, but only through a single statement. The vetran
ex-panchas who became gray serving panchayat are now demanding a constitutional
assembly. One thing worth rembering is that one of the communist factions
also has been demanding a constitutional assembly and an apprehension
from the beginning that the extreme progressiveness of this faction might
be adopted as a political benefit by the reactionaries has proved legitimate.
Strikes, sit-ins and such incidents are taking place over unimportant
issues. These are inspired only by the motive of "making has while
the sun shines" and in the end they benefit the reactionaries, whose
nondemocratic practices, such as sooting up the faces of individuals simply
on the basis of suspicion, garlanding them with shoes, and putting up
posters in public places with a call to kill these suspected people, have
been seen repeatedly. Arbitrariness has increased, based on the fallacy
that each and every activity in democracy is valid.
The interim government has not been able to free people from doubts and
dilemmas by punishing the persons responsible for such anti-democracy
and reactionary activities. The government, however, has been provided
with all essential official rights from the King, and the popular verdict
is already with it. A government wiht faith in democracy should be liberal
and tolerant, but that does not mean that such a government should not
have the firmness to sentence killers and culprits.
With the passage of time, the democratic and progressive parties have
begun to issue factionalizing statements and to organize mass meetings
to declare their indepedent existence which has confused the general public.
In fact, such tendencies symbolize the reality of personality clashes
and the recognition crisis among the leaders of both parties. Although
these are the things of least importance, they could lead the parties
to disunity and disintegration.
The lone result that can be seen from the situation is anarchy, and no
single party has the power to become the majority leader of the nation.
In this context how can we say that the people of a country whose population
is three-fourths illiterate, and who consider the King as the sovereign
ruler, won't again reestablish the dethroned totalitarianism? How can
we say that a new dictator will not emerge from the circumtances that
pit therural peasants against the urban middle class and the laborers
against the intelligentsia?
The public never remains steadfast for long in a situation where their
lives are disrupted by regular strikes, confusion and uncertainty. The
political parties, if they truly believe in multi-party democracy, must
stay unified until the final drafting of the new constitution and the
completion of a general election under it. We should not forget that anarchy
always paves the way for the rise of authoritarianism.
Asmita, Vol. III, No. 8
|
