By April 16, 2006, not only had India sent a senior envoy to speak with King Gyanendra (see photo left) in an attempt to reduce the tension of Nepal’s political pressure cooker, but US Ambassador James Moriarty (see photo right) had met with the King, followed by a Chinese delegation as well. This diplomatic flurry, however, was not enough to reduce the tensions. Nonetheless, after thousands of Nepali’s defied the King’s curfew and warnings for two weeks that protestors would be shot on sight, on April 21 Gyanendra announced “Executive power?shall, from this day, be returned to the people.” By April 24, he publicly called for Parliament to reconvene on April 28. While many wonder how long the King can last, late word that the Maoist rebels rejected the King’s call to participate adds urgency to the State Department’s evacuation orders to non-emergency embassy workers and their families (Advisory and Advisory).
The prospects have never been more cloudy for the King, who ascended to the throne after the bizarre June 1, 2001 murder of his older brother King Birendra and eight others at the hand of Birendra’s son who himself died of gunshot wounds received that same day. Over half of nearly 26 million Nepalis live in small villages and are easily swayed by rumors and innuendos. However, despite the suspicion by some that Gyanendra was involved in the death of his predecessor motivated by a desire to see his own son, Crown Prince Paras , ascend the thrown, the monarchy as an institution retains a strong historical and emotional pull on the populace, leaving many to doubt it will be eliminated even if Gyanendra abdicates.
Despite King Gyanendra’s previous order to shoot protestors on sight, surprisingly few civilians?estimates suggest 14?have been killed facing down security forces over the past two weeks. The restraint of the armed forces, and perhaps even its nagging doubts about the King and/or sympathies for the protestors, has kept Gyanendra’s strongest ally off the stage of this drama. On April 18, the Christian Science Monitor published an analysis of the critical role the Army would and could play to resolve the political impasse between the seven party alliance partnered with the Maoists against the monarchy. Yet, tasked by the King to counter the Maoist insurgency in the rural areas and keep the peace in the face of mass protests in the city streets, the military cannot afford to sit on the fence much longer. One senior Army officer noted, “For the moment, the Army deserting the King is out of question. We are used to working under his majesty. However, we are certainly worried about how long he is going to last.”
In fact, by choosing not to choose thus far, the security forces have bolstered the spirits of the political parties, the Maoists, and the population at large. However, if the emboldened Maoists reject an opportunity to join the political process and, instead, press for total elimination of the monarchy, the armed forces will not likely be as passive when faced with their own diminution. As such, the next moves by the Maoists will be critical. By continuing an armed struggle, the rebels face losing their political allies and driving them into the hands of an again ascendant monarchy.
