Pradeep Giri is a central committee member of the Sher Bahadur Deuba led Nepali Congress (Democratic). A former MP, Giri has been involved with the democratic movement in Nepal for almost four decades. He spoke to Prashant Jha about the democratic experience in Nepal, the roots of the present imbroglio, resistance against the monarch and a possible roadmap for a just, peaceful and restructured Nepali polity.

Why couldn't the aspirations expressed by the people's movement of 1990 be realised under the multiparty setup instituted then?

The movement in 1990 was a sudden and spectacular success. While parties had been struggling for democracy for 30 years after King Mahendra's takeover, there were changes occurring in Nepali society. Modernisation was afoot and an assertive middle class had arrived. There was international pressure on the king to give up his absolute powers. Parties, in this context, succeeded in achieving democracy almost effortlessly. However, their ideological perspective as well as organisational structures remained weak and support base narrow, consisting essentially of students, youth and activists. It is this absence of intrinsic strength that forced parties to repeatedly compromise with the monarch. He was allowed to retain his privileges, including direct control over the army. The present predicament is a consequence of that situation.

How would you respond to the perception that political parties in Nepal were myopic and failed to live up to the expectations of people, thus paving the way for the king to take over?

It is true that parties failed to meet people's expectations. They were confused ideologically and politically, besides relying on a narrow class and caste base. However, it is important to assess the democratic parties in terms of larger systemic factors and not merely the conduct and competence of leaders. The tumultuous movement heralded by the Bolshevik Revolution came to an end in the early years of the last decade. There was universal celebration of the victory of the market and the end of history. Political parties in the Third World, particularly Nepal, were mesmerized by this rhetoric. They thought that the invisible hand of the market could take care of the aspirations of people while they would rest and recuperate after the long innings in jail and in exile.

Some would say rest and recuperation came to mean widespread corruption, horse trading and a lack of commitment to basic norms of democracy.

I do not hold such an uncharitable view of parties even if there have been omissions and commissions. Nepali parties fare better than parties elsewhere in the Third World and cannot be compared with parties in evolved political contours of western societies. They are a new phenomena in a land for long ruled by kings and generals and dominated by a feudal patriarchal mindset. Parties have had to work within such a social framework. Considering the constraints they operated under, they have performed quite remarkably.

How do you assess the rise of the Maoists in Nepal?

It is important to look at the unfortunate history of Nepal to understand who the Maoists are and where they come from. Nepal's map, like territorial delineation of other Asian and African countries, was carved arbitrarily. This has created serious infrastructural problems. Further, the Rana clan monopolised state power in Nepal for more than a century with the support of the British Raj in exchange for being servile to them. There are few nation states where such a narrow social group has captured all resources. The Khas elite, which comprises of upper castes of the hills, have dominated the country since its inception. Maoists have taken advantage of the consequent discontent and anger among the masses. Dalits, women and ethnic groups have been empowered for the first time. Support for the Maoists emanates from these groups.

In the present political configuration, the king and Maoists with their respective armies seem to be the strongest forces. What is the role of political parties in such a context?

Political parties may appear to be the most marginal force at this time, but if and when peace and normalcy is restored, the average Nepali will identify himself with one or the other group. The Maoists also have a good chance of being accepted provided they look more like a political party and less like a martial outfit. I am personally against parties taking up arms, whatever the crisis, situation or rationalisation. It is only through the classic tools of a democracy – elections, discussions and persuasion – that a lasting solution can be arrived at.

How do you think resistance against the monarch would shape up?

We must understand how movements come about. Masses are usually apathetic till the last hour. They come forward to tilt the balance in the final stages. It is the cadre and the leadership, particularly the middle-rung activists who will play the most important role. They serve as the link between the top rung and the masses. Such a strata is already active in Nepal. Once the central leadership arrives at a clear and common goal the movement will take off.

There seem to be few signs of a struggle emerging. Is there a cynicism about parties and democracy that is preventing a movement from gaining strength?

A struggle is a gradual process. Surprisingly, there is very little disillusionment among the party activists. They are not demoralised by the king's move and are getting ready for a period of resistance. This positive attitude can be attributed to the exposure people have had to democracy for more than a decade. In fact, the Maoists are also a product of democracy. Young girls today refuse to be sold in brothels of Bombay and are instead taking up arms to fight. This is a move forward. The resistance will be shaped by all segments of Nepali population asserting their rights and seeking to break the stranglehold of the elite.

What is the possibility of an understanding emerging between the Maoists and the parties, considering the fact that there has been intense animosity between the two sides in the past?

There is no way out except such an understanding. Only such an alliance can lead to a permanent solution. I know it is a difficult process. Both sides have to learn a lot from their past mistakes and engage in some serious introspection. The Maoists must realise that if they remain where they are now politically, they will reach nowhere. They have been unkind to parties and failed to differentiate between state terror and those holding office at the moment. The parties happily basked in the glory of a powerless office and the Maoists mistook this office for power and attacked them. The fact that Maoists did not believe in any kind of rule of law frightened the parties even more. Maoists do have a lot to answer for. However, the parties should not expect Maoists to come praying for amnesty. They must also compromise. A genuine dialogue between the two forces is imperative.

The king has control of all state structures and is known to harbour totalitarian tendencies. What could push Gyanendra to give up his powers?

He will buckle under the same pressure that has forced sultans, Ceasers and czars out across the world. A popular mass upsurge against the king would be the ultimate decisive force. There have been monarchs all over the world for thousands of years. How many of them exist now? Objective conditions have changed. Ancient societies were simpler with little need for an elaborate legal or economic structure. Modernity has made life complicated. As Marxists put it, the relations and the means of production have changed. This has made monarchy irrelevant in modern societies and Nepal is no exception. Gyanendra survives at the mercy of the army elite and international forces. The objective conditions that forced Birendra to capitulate in 1990 have multiplied and will defeat the present king too.

How do you assess the response of the international community to the royal coup?

I appreciate the swift condemnation by the international community. I am wary about how long international pressure can be sustained. They don't have an accurate understanding of the reality. The so called reasons of state might tempt them to strike a deal with a tyrant who mouths the rhetoric of freedom. It is important not to depend on the international community and strive to build an indigenous struggle against the monarch.

Could you suggest a feasible road map that could provide a way out of the present political situation?

The first step is Gyanendra abdicating, in principle or in practice. I qualify my statement because he can surrender his powers to an interim government that would include representatives of all political parties and some members of civil society. It is the people alone who have the right to govern themselves irrespective of perceived corruption or incompetence. Such a government would have full legislative, executive and judicial authority and take decisions on the next step.

And can the next step be elections for a constituent assembly?

Certainly. Forming a constituent assembly is the only way out of the present predicament. At present, no proposed solution to the problems of Nepal can ignore or bypass the Maoists. The Maoists are committed to participating in elections to a constituent assembly. This could in fact provide a meeting ground between mainstream democratic parties and the Maoists. Additionally, one must not forget that the constituent assembly remains an unfinished task of the democratic revolution in Nepal. In 1951, King Tribhuvan had promised to abide by the verdict of the constituent assembly elected on the basis of universal adult franchise. Three generations of monarchy have reneged on the promise. The promise was extracted from the king with the direct mediation of Nehru. In fact, this is one important reason why the Indian state and people should contribute their might to expedite such an election. Besides, a constituent assembly will provide the Nepali people to exercise their inalienable right to choose the polity they want. The mandate of the constituent assembly must be unconditional and it should be allowed to decide the fate of the monarchy and the future structure of the polity.

Do you believe Nepal should even have a constitutional monarch?

The Nepali people do not need a monarch. It is the monarch who is fighting to survive. However, recent suggestions about a ceremonial monarch can be considered as one option in the interests of peace and speedy termination of the civil war.

What should a restructured and reformed Nepali state look like?

Nepal has to become a secular country with a federal structure. Affirmative action is essential for what I call the ‘ Damajama '– Dalits, Madhesis or the people of the Terai, Janjati or the ethnic groups and Mahila. We also need to rethink the tenets of democracy in Nepal. Due process of law or media freedom has little appeal to the starving millions. Nepal has to carve a democracy that ensures basic civil rights but it cannot allow the vagaries of the market to take care of poverty, illiteracy and the misery of the people. A radical reinterpretation of democracy is imperative. We need to combine the insights of Marxism with the inviolable values of liberal democracy. Fortunately, some contemporary political scientists have made contributions in this field. Such a model could address problems raised by the Maoists and satisfy the votaries of liberalism as well. Democracy has to become a way of life if Nepal is to be a happy and viable nation state.