 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
E-mail your letter to the editor
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
| TOMAS VAN HOUTRYVE FOR TIME |
| THE GOD-KING: Gyanendra is steeled for a long fight |
|
 |
| "It's a Question of Survival" |
 |
|
|
|
|
Interview with King Gyanendra |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Posted Monday, April 18, 2005; 20:00 HKT
For his first interview with the foreign press since his takeover on Feb. 1, King Gyanendra met TIME's South Asia bureau chief Alex Perry at his offices in Narananhity Royal Palace.
TIME: It was a well-executed takeover. Had you been planning this for a while?
King Gyanendra: I have been asked this by others as well. There really was no plan about it; it was just something that I think was in the cards. The many Nepalese that I was meeting at that time, including visitors from various parts of the country, very clearly [had] one aspiration, which was peace. For them [the takeover] was a foregone conclusion. I did try to get the message across to the various governments of the day, that [if they did not give] due recognition to the aspirations of the people, we would not be heading in the right direction. I think Feb. 1 was just, if you like, a fall-out of the accumulation of these aspirations. There was no one thing that sparked this.
TIME: What did you make of the strong international opposition?
Gyanendra: It's fair to say that those who should have known [what I was planning] knew, and those who should not, simply did not. Surprised is not the word. Disappointed, that's the word. Because what was the objective of Feb. 1? I think I made it very clear: to fight for democracy against terrorism. Now our friends must come and tell us whether this objective is incorrect, or help us in this cause.
TIME: Can you understand the skepticism that greets statements like that, when you talk democracy but your methods are anti-democratic?
Gyanendra: For me skepticism is slow suicide. It's reacting with half knowledge. Yes, we can go on arguing about methods, but something that was done under the provisions of the constitution cannot be defined as undemocratic. Yes, we can go on asking: was it necessary to go so far? But a little less might have yielded no results at all. I am saddened by the few of our friends that have chosen to curb much-needed assistance. Many Nepalese are identifying who their real friends are in this time of need. And I hear that this [suspension of aid] is being done because they feel much of the assistance will be used against democratic forces. I think that's a lopsided opinion which has not been thought through. This is just imperfect knowledge, and that is the parent of doubt, and in this situation there is no room for that.
TIME: Are you asking for help from elsewhere. From China? Or Pakistan?
Gyanendra: This is a misconception, a slander. These options are always there; as of now, it's not true. We hope saner heads will prevail [in countries] where we have already received such vital assistance.
TIME: Do you agree you've taken an enormous risk, with your crown and your life?
Gyanendra: It depends what you mean by risk. I'd look at it in this way: in many cases in our history, the monarchy has always sided with the people and risked itself with them. But that's not considered a risk. That's considered conduct by, for and with the aspirations and will of the people. The commitment to upholding democracy is something that a King has made to his people and no one can break that trust.
TIME: In your proclamation, you spoke of an offensive against the Maoists. When can we expect that?
Gyanendra: Is that something that's prudent? Do you want us to be aggressive, insulting or attacking? I do not think it is wise to only attack. There are many other things which also have to be implemented, like winning the hearts and minds of the people, for example. You have to have the population with you in this type of situation.
TIME: You're hinting that this is an unwinnable war.
Gyanendra: It's not a question of winning or not winning. It's a question of taming. The Royal Nepalese Army is conducting itself under the rules and laws proscribed in the constitution. At the same time, the nation has chosen today to in no way accept terrorism, and they will conduct themselves accordingly. [A military operation] is not for me to talk about. But clearly a decision has been made that in this country, the use of terrorism is not acceptable, and the RNA will do the needful—whatever is required. They will coerce, comprehend, coordinate, cooperate. No law abiding citizen in Nepal should feel any pain. Yet those who do not abide by the law, who do not accept the majority's choice, they will feel pain.
TIME: There are serious concerns over the RNA's human rights record. Do you share them?
Gyanendra: Think of Guantanamo, Iraq. We don't have bad stories like that. I am not saying that there have not been some accidents. We do have some instances [of abuse], but they have come to the fore and where the guilty have been found, action has been taken. You asked me this once before, and I give you the same answer: are these questions being raised now because the RNA is being successful?
|
|
