18 intellectuals imprisoned in Duwakote barrack write to the ambassadors to explain why king's offers must be dismissed.
=============================
To the Ambassadors
Of the European Union member states,
The United States, India, China,
and the Representative of the United Nations.
23 April 2006
Duwakot, Bhaktapur District
Excellencies,
We civil society detainees, kept at the Duwakot Armed
Police barrack, believe that your governments' welcoming
response to Friday's address by King Gyanendra was based
on a misperception of Nepali political reality and a
misreading of the address itself. Though surely based on
the best of intentions, your reaction has needlessly
delayed a peaceful transition in the country at a critical
hour, when millions of Nepalis are on the streets
agitating for an immediate return to democracy. This show
of people's solidarity carried out massively and
peacefully all over the country and in Kathmandu Valley,
deserves more respect than has been accorded by the
international community.
While the royal address certainly indicated a step back by
the king, and it might even have been adequate sometime
ago, at the given moment it was grievously misplaced in
both tone and substance. In terms of tone: the king
justified his 1 February 2005 coup d'etat; spoke in favour
of the security forces despite their dubious record; did
not acknowledge the need to engage the Maoist rebels; and
ignored the incredible show of people power on the streets
whose essential demand is that kingship be abolished or
made absolutely powerless.
In terms of substance, the king has talked about returning
power that had been given to him for 'safekeeping', when
the fact is that the events of 4 October 2002 and 1
February 2005 represented a naked power grab. Further, the
king is not the custodian of sovereignty, which is
naturally inherent in the people under the constitution of
1990 and it is not up to him to hand it back to the
people.
Most importantly, those who welcome the royal address seem
to believe that the king has unequivocally conceded
sovereignty to the Nepali people. This is not our reading.
Nowhere does 'sovereign' or 'sovereignty' occur in the
Nepali original, unlike in the translation, apparently
provided by the royal palace, where there is reference to
"source of sovereign authority". In the Nepali original,
the king refers to "state power remaining with the people"
as part of listing the terms of reference of the
government to be formed. This phrase is included only in
passing, and does not amount to the king conceding
sovereignty as residing in the people.
According to two jurists, both framers of the 1990
Constitution, who are included in our Duwakot group,
'state power' does not by any stretch of imagination
translate as 'sovereign authority'. We believe that there
is a sleight of hand involved here, by a royal palace
intent on misleading the embassies. Overall, we conclude
that the king is not prepared to transfer sovereign power.
As things stand, what king Gyanendra has asked the
political parties to do is to set up a government with
'executive power' but without legislative authority. In
substance and form, this government would have the same
authority, under the much-maligned Article 127 of the
Constitution, as given to governments constituted thrice
and disbanded as many times by the king between October
2002 and February 2005. The government would be an
executive at the king's command, meant to take
responsibility for the excesses committed under the royal
direct rule. It would only have the power over day-to-day
administration, without authority to undo the ordinances,
appointments, and other actions of the king during his
period of active rule. Because the executive would act
without the backing of a legislature, the king would be
the authority of last resort, retaining the power of
dismissing the sitting prime minister.
Given the royal palace's record, we know that the
government to be formed would be hindered at every step as
the latter seeks to pursue the publicly announced
seven-party roadmap for peace and democracy. Nor would
this government have the authority ab initio to challenge
the army's current role and the ongoing militarisation of
state and society by the royal regime. Further, the royal
address seeks to retain the link of loyalty between the
king and the army. This is a far cry from what is needed:
a government that works on the mandate of the People's
Movement and not that of the royal palace. In sum, the
king's grudging concession does not address the great
issues that cry out for resolution.
We appeal to your excellencies to also recall the many
times that the royal palace has played the game of
deception with you, and to introspect whether king
Gyanendra, retaining all the powers as head of state not
responsible to a legislature, will allow any forthcoming
government to act independently. Your attitude seems to be
"the king has given this much, take it and make the best
of it". Unfortunately, neither the political parties nor
we here in Duwakot, are confident that the royal palace
will not intervene in the workings of the executive to be
formed. This would be in line with the historical record
of the royal palace victimizing the people whenever there
has been a move toward genuine democracy.
We ask you, in the hours and days ahead, to be more alert
to royal machinations and to support the political parties
as they challenge the royal palace. For our part, we would
hope that the political parties make a pro-active
announcement and seize the moment. There is a need for
such an initiative in order to prevent anarchy and
dangerous collapse of state structures. For this, the
political parties should unilaterally declare restoration
of the Third Parliament and/or announce a parallel
government. Thereafter, they should consult with the
Maoist rebels who have credibly indicated their intention
to enter open politics, and announce elections to an
unconditional constituent assembly. We hope that the
international community will come forward with immediate
recognition of such a unilateral declaration, required to
prevent Nepal from sinking into the pit of one kind of
extremism or another. In such an evolution, we see no role
for king Gyanendra other than as a mute spectator.
Please note, Excellencies, that this is the only path to
stability in Nepal which both the Nepali masses and the
international community want so keenly. The world
community, which has harboured such enormous goodwill for
the Nepali people and which has been party to our
nation-building and development efforts for more than five
decades, must respect the maturity of the Nepali political
discourse which is speeding the current, exhilarating
People's Movement. Please also note, Excellencies, the
kingship is not indispensable for the maintenance of
Nepali nationhood, and that it should henceforth remain,
if at all, at the cognisance of Nepal's 26 million
citizens.
The latest announcement by the Indian Foreign Secretary,
about respecting the will of the people of Nepal, we
believe, provides a corrective to the error evident in the
Indian government's initial welcome note. The Indian
corrective, we believe, should be emulated by all other
international players who wish the Nepali people well.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mr. Rupak Adhikari
Mr. Anubhav Ajeet
Mr. Bimal Aryal
Mr. Laxman Prasad Aryal
Mr. Ramesh Bhattarai
Mr. Kanak Mani Dixit
Dr. Saroj Dhital
Mr. Daman Nath Dhungana
Mr. Arjun Parajuli
Mr. Bhasker Gautam
Dr. Madhu Ghimire
Dr. Mahesh Maskey
Dr. Sarad Wanta
Dr. Bidur Osti
Dr. Bharat Pradhan
Mr. Charan Prasai
Mr. Padma Ratna Tuladhar
Mr. Malla K. Sunder
=======================
