Close

Donate today to keep Global Voices strong!

Watch the video: We Are Global Voices!

We report on 167 countries. We translate in 35 languages. We are Global Voices. Watch the video »

Over 800 of us from all over the world work together to bring you stories that are hard to find by yourself. But we can’t do it alone. Even though most of us are volunteers, we still need your help to support our editors, our technology, outreach and advocacy projects, and our community events.

Donate now »
GlobalVoices in Learn more »

Nepal: A Failed Coup?

The conflict started last year when the politicians in Nepal started debating the integration of the former Maoist guerrillas, popularly known as People’s Liberation Army (PLA) into the country’s national army (NA). It was predicted then that the process could affect the structure and stability of the national army.

Dr. Divas at ABC reported in January 2009 about a conflict between Defense Minister Ram Bahadur Thapa Badal and the national army Chief Rookmangud Katwal :

Badal and Katwal are at loggerheads over whether the NA should continue with fresh inductions to fulfill the vacant posts in the army. While Badal accuses the Army of trying to control a democratically elected government by refusing its directives, Katwal sounds defiance against the Maoists tactic of keeping the National Army under the Party’s control.

Katwal finds the Maoists ungrateful toward the NA in general and the Maoists find Katwal a major impediment against implementing their agenda. Since then the situation has degraded. Dr. Divas updates on April 23rd on the same post:

Prachanda supported a decision by the defense ministry two days ago to seek clarification from General Katawal over allegations that he ignored government orders on recruitment and the sacking of eight senior army generals.

Neil's Nepal warned of consequences:

The Army has been blatantly violating the principle of civilian control. [..] Not only this, the major opposition party is supporting the army in it’s continual violation, and the Maoists are probably not at the hight of popularity. Now that the Maoists are calling the army chief in for a “clarification,” something that could be a preliminary stage of sacking him, all traditional indicators would be pointing to an army coup. This is a particularly serious concern in light of the fact that the last army coup was a mere four years ago.

But the blogger also provided logic why the coup would not happen:

The PLA is still sitting out in cantonments, it still has it’s arms, and it’s still loyal to the Maoist chain of command. The army chief knows that if he uses some pretext to sack the elected government, he won’t just have to deal with an extremely organized street protest/urban uprising (from a party that is now entrenched in urban areas and highly militant). He’ll immediately have to pit his troops (who may not be so willing) against an 18,000 strong, highly motivated, guerrilla force.

United We Blog! for a Democratic Nepal informs today that some “Generals of Nepal Army had made plans of (a) ’soft coup’ to tackle Maoist’s plan to dismiss the Chief of the Army Staff General Rookmangud Katwal.” Dr. Divas also updates that General Katwal was for executing something within statute, a “Bangladesh-inspired President’s Rule backed by India Government”.

A detailed report has been published in eKantipur.com. It shows that Maoists were planning to integrate all 19,000 former guerrillas (PLA) in the National Army and several PLA commanders would get higher positions.

United We Blog! also posted the army's response strongly refuting the reports as “imaginary and illusionary.”

Neil's Nepal points to the Maoists’ advantage:

The Maoists have found their way around this inconvenient fact by forming their own army (through great difficulty) and breaking the governments monopoly on the use of force. Hence, they don’t have the loyalty of the army (at least not the leadership), but they probably aren’t going anywhere anytime soon.

  • Sie.Kathieravelu

    The “National Army” should be under ‘civilian’ control under a ‘civilian’ government but not under he control of any political party. Cadres of ‘political’ parties should not be inducted into the “national Army” and the “political army” should be ‘dismantled’ by the ‘civilian government’ if peace has to be sustained in the country.

    Certainly the supporters or loyalists of the Maoists has to be looked after by the Maoists BUT NOT by inducting them into the “National Army”. They should be found alternative gainful employment. That is A DUTY of the government and particularly by the Maoist political party that is in power now.

    Helping the supporters to find gainful employment is NOT by inducting them into the “National Army”.

    The “party” MUST be different from the “government”. “Party” is for a group of people BUT “government” is for the citizens of the country supporting different political parties in a democratic government comprising various political parties.

    The “Maoists” MUST NOT try to replace the “King”. The “Maoists” were elected by the people but the “King” was not elected by the people. That difference must be kept in mind by ALL political parties. So the action of inducting the “political army” into the “National Army” will not bring sustainable peace and development to the country.

    A political party is “replaceable” BUT a National Army is NOT “replaceable”.

    Security of the country MUST be in the hands of the elected civilian “government” and NOT in the hands of a political party that stands for election.

    Government is “administered” by one or more political parties BUT one or more political parties cannot be the “government”.

    Political parties mus keep in mind that “Administration” of the Government is a “short-term duty” given to the political parties by the people and they must act accordingly..

  • Pingback: Global Voices Online » Nepal: Prime Minister Prachanda resigns

  • Pingback: Maoism in the HIMALAYAS « Palashbiswaskl’s Weblog

World regions

Countries

Languages