States can often be hell-bent on destroying themselves. The conduct of Nepal’s monarchy is another illustration of this phenomenon. King Gyanendra suspended civil liberties and the modicum of democracy that existed in Nepal on the pretext of saving it from Maoists and ineffectual politicians. He was hoping this would create enough ambivalence in the international community, in particular India, to enable him to get away with his stratagem. After all, the prospect of a Maoist takeover in Nepal makes most governments nervous. If the choice was posed as one between Maoists and the king, the king would win. Although the international community has asked the king to restore democracy, it is fair to say that it has not acted decisively enough to compel the king to do so. India should have sent strong signals to the king right from the beginning. Instead, it has only now taken a firm position, but what it will do on the ground remains unclear. It is extraordinary that the international community has not been able to leverage the fact that it sustains the monarchy by financial and military help into extracting any meaningful concession from the king. Most monarchies are cowardly enough to be concerned about their own survival. If India had made it clearer that if the Maoists did not get the king, the international community would, perhaps it would have concentrated the king’s mind a little better. India should not fall into the trap of the king using China or the Maoists as a blackmailing counter. For one thing, the future of Nepal will hinge upon addressing the grievances that have given rise to the Maoists. Defeating them will require a political strategy that incorporates some elements into a political process. But military might alone will not do the job. More important, nothing the king is doing seems to be an effective measure against the Maoists. It is perverted logic to suppose that cracking down on civil liberties, arresting journalists, using the security apparatus to impose martial law like, or violating human rights with impunity, has anything to do with fighting the Maoists. If anything, these measures will only deepen the monarchy’s legitimation crisis. They are signs that the king has no real strategy to deal with the Maoists. Rather his actions are symptomatic of a monarchy out of touch with reality even as it tries through violence and intimidation to assert its authority. The monarch, properly chastened and placed under constitutional restraints, can still perform a useful function in Nepal. But the message has to go out that if Gyanendra does not restore democracy immediately, his time will be up.
