 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
E-mail your letter to the editor
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
TIME: What about the reports we hear from Kapilbastu, of lynch mobs killing 30 people, burning hundreds of homes, and encouraged to do so by the RNA?
Gyanendra: Let's be very clear here. Has Nepal witnessed rising public antipathy against terrorism? Yes. That's a fact. No one needs to instigate the public. Enough is enough. That's clearly the message the rural population is giving the terrorists. They are rising up. And I welcome these moves by the people. They have given a clear message to the terrorists that they are unwelcome and that no more will they tolerate their attacks, their extortion and their kidnapping. But when they do rise up, they must conduct themselves in a proper and civil manner and according to the rule of law. It also absolutely untrue that the RNA was in any way involved in this incident. They arrived on the scene only after they received a message [about the incident]. They went to restore peace, not instigate violence.
TIME: Doesn't it worry you, taking power with a military that is so criticized?
Gyanendra: Did I use the military to take over?
TIME: OK, let's call them the security forces.
Gyanendra: Of which there is a civilian component.
TIME: Let me put it this way: do you feel you have complete control over the army?
Gyanendra: I do not believe in controlling anything. If the system works, discipline is there and the system does not function at the whims and fancies of an individual. If you're talking about loyalty, that's another thing.
TIME: What am I trying to get at is: you used the army, which faces serious questions over its human rights conduct, to take over.
Gyanendra: Are you accusing me of a coup? This is not a coup at all. An emergency has been declared. You can debate whether it should have been declared or not, but once it has been declared, constitutional provisions forces one to ... implement those clauses that an emergency puts into place. And there has already been a relaxation. That's the only decree I've made since Feb. 1. What else have I been trying to do? We have enough laws and regulations to do what we need to do. Nothing new has been introduced.
TIME: The one thing you share with the rebels is a frustration with the performance of the political parties. Tell me why.
Gyanendra: I am still frustrated. I think any sane individual would be. The parties have to understand that there is a changed context, and they need to come forward with their perceptions on four things: on our fight against terror, on our fight against corruption, on fiscal discipline, and on strengthening the bureaucracy to make it more result-, people- and service-oriented. If we are clear on these four things, then we can discuss the methods and systems to achieve peace.
And what's peace for? Peace is for stability. Give peace a chance. And what will peace give you? An opportunity to hold elections. And what are they for? So that parliament can function again. And what is parliament for? So that the democratic parties are in place again. I am giving you a roadmap. And I urge all our friends to give their support and understanding in this cause.
TIME: The thing is, you shut down the political parties, locked up their leaders. Don't you think you damaged, or even made irrelevant, the very things you say you're working to strengthen?
Gyanendra: You can only damage something if it's sound. If it is not, if it is already broken, I don't call that damage at all. It's not for me to say and judge how the parties should be run. But it's for me to say that if they do not conduct themselves as representatives of the people, then there is something basically unsound.
Look, democracy is here to stay. No one will be able to get rid of it. And the institution of the monarchy will see to it that no one can get rid of it. But the parties are a vehicle in that progress, and you can always change vehicles. The people have to decide what vehicle they want.
TIME: Do you think the rebels have lost any claim to a legitimate cause?
Gyanendra: Yes. This is proved by their actions. Their actions speak for them. Look, you have to have a balanced approach. You cannot go to extremes to achieve things. But this is a language that they do not understand. Which part of the constitution does not allow them to talk peacefully? You don't like some word, you don't like some idea, these things can be thrashed out peacefully. This outdated, dilapidated thought that everything comes from the barrel of a gun is not an ideology accepted anywhere in the 21st century.
TIME: That's also something to talk about. To an outsider, this war, a King fighting a Maoist guerrilla, can seem strangely historic, as though Nepal is fighting the battles of the last century.
Gyanendra: (Laughs). You can put it like that if you like. But it's not a question of the monarchy fighting. I think the Nepalese understand that it's a question of the survival of the nation. We cannot afford this conflict anymore. Democracy is not about 'I am as good as you.' It's about 'you are as good as me.' People have to understand this. We have heard: 'Freedom enhances democracy.' We agree with that. But here again in Nepal, what is happening? Such undisciplined freedom has nearly brought about the end of democracy. Why is it that as soon as we talk of freedom, everyone forgets their duty and responsibility to the nation? Are individuals above the nation? Is a system above the nation? We want to see mass participation in the democratic set-up where the masses are given the opportunity to have a say in their own welfare. We want to see transparency, openness and communication flourish. The people must be their own masters.
|
|
