I live in Romania so it's hard for me to judge sometimes, but looking at CNN it seems like Nepal is finally finding its way into the coverage of the traditional media in America.
As such, I thought it would be a good idea to take an in-depth look at the history of Nepal and understand how the country got to where it is today.
As you can see by the map (via BBC), Nepal is a land-locked country nestling between India's northeast "shoulder" and southwestern China.
This is one of the most mountainous areas in the world and the world's highest peaks can be found here. This includes Mount Everest, who straddles the border of China and Nepal. In the Nepalese language, Mount Everest is called Sagarmatha, which means "Forehead of the Sky". Because of a variety of reasons, ascending Mt. Everest is easier from the Nepal and the local sherpa people are famous for guiding experienced and amateur climbers alike.
Nepal is the only country in the world whose state religion is Hinduism, with over 80% of the people being followers of this faith. Because of this, it is also one of the most vegetarian places in the world as well. The modern Nepali language is closely related to Sanskrit, the language of the holy books of the Hindu faith. Buddhists compromise about 10%, with Islam and local religions making up the rest. The non-Hindu religions have blended their customs fairly harmoniously with the majority faith, much as in the island of Bali in Indonesia.
Nepal is a broad land with many different groups, both ethnic and linguistic. Nepali is the official language but is only spoken by about half the population (as their primary language), the rest speaking dozens of local tongues. Similarly, there is no one dominant ethnic group, the largest being the Chhretri at about 16% of the population.
Both today and throughout history, Nepal has largely been an agricultural nation, the primary occupation of about half the population. Nepal is laid out physically on a east-west axis but the terrain is on a north-south access, with the northern part being mountainous sloping down to the south's gentle plains. Because of a (relatively) sparse population, many communities in Nepal live in relative isolation from one another.
At various times throughout history, different parts of Nepal came under the control of Indian rulers, which was then more of a series of hill-states than a unified nation. It wasn't until about 1777 that Nepal emerged as a separate identity, with borders that roughly match the country of Nepal's today. As Britain began to expand its colonial interest in the Indian subcontinent, various Nepalese rulers clashed with them as well as with China. In fact, at one time Nepal controlled modern-day Tibet but were expelled in 1792 by the Chinese Qing Empire.
Britain and Nepal fought their biggest war in 1814-1816, where Nepal was severely outnumbered but relied on highly-disciplined troops and locally produced armaments. At the end of the war a treaty was signed wherein Nepal lost territory but it ended up being a victory in the long run because it was never annexed as part of the British Empire. This is also in part due to the fact that Nepal fought on the British side to crush the "Sepoy Rebellion" in 1857-1858.
Nepal is the home of the Gurkha people, world renowed for their discipline and fighting ability. Gurkhas fought as mercenary troops for Britain during the colonial period and are still in use today, especially in places like Iraq. For more on them, see here.
A couple of different royal lineages have ruled Nepal throughout modern history and that continues today, where King Gyanendra is one of the world's last remaining absolute monarchs. Despite this, Nepal has experimented with various forms of complimentary governments (cabinets, parliaments, etc) since the mid 1800's. Indeed, 150 years ago the royal family's power was much less than it is today, with the civilian government (controlled by a handful of families) calling the shots.
After India became independent from Britain in 1947, a number of critical world events took place, one of which was China's invasion and annexation of Tibet in 1950. India, wanting to create a buffer against the newly-minted Communist nation, backed King Tribhuvan as the ruler of Nepal and aided Nepalese parties aligned with India, particularly the NCP (which was pro-democracy). From about 1847-1959, Nepal had various forms of elected government ruling alongside (or even over) the king.
It was in 1959 when Nepal took a sharp political turn. The king (Mahendra, son of Tribhuvan), feeling that the elected government was hampering his abilities to run the country, dissolved the parliament and instituted the "panchayat" system. Summarizing the panchayat system is difficult but essentially it grouped villages in lots of 5, whose elders appointed all the positions. All political parties were banned. In India it is a democratic system as all major decisions are taken by majority vote, but in Nepal it kept only very local decisions in the hands of people while all national issues of government were handled by the king. For more information on the panchayat in Nepal, see here.
Nepal was run by an absolute monarch and the panchayat system from 1959 until 1989. Mahendra's son Birendra became king in 1972 at the death of his father. Although the pachayat system was lacking in some core democratic elements, it did do a lot to stabilize and balance Nepal's class structure and Nepal overall benefited in this period. In fact, in 1980 a popular referendum was held and about 55% of the people voted to keep the panchayat system.
During the 1980's, various political parties (who were semi-legal) began agitating for a return to a representative government. Using boycotts and other largely peaceful measures, they pressured the king to reinstate direct elections (for a parliament). A bitter dispute with India in 1989 led to a brief but devastating embargo, weakening the king's support and he finally relented. Political parties were legalized and direct elections were held in 1991.
Although less influential than the NCP party, various Communist political parties have been in existance in Nepal since the 1940's. In 1996, they united (more or less) under one theme: that the parliamentary system should be replaced with a socialist republic. Their demands were not heeded and they began to wage a civil war, which continues to this day. Currently the estimates are that between 12,000 and 20,000 people have died in the fighting, the vast majority of them civilians.
The Communist Party in Nepal is usually referred to as being "Maoist" as it bases its political leanings on Mao Tse Tung. It should be noted here that they have absolutely no connection with China and in fact China supports the king of Nepal, against whom they are fighting. Sometimes the Communists/Maoists in Nepal are referred to as "Naxalites", a term that more accurately refers to Communist/Maoist insurgency groups in India.
The Maoists in Nepal have their own Chairman Mao, a man named Pushpa Kamal Dahal who is more commonly known by his nom de guerre, Prachanda, which means "fierce one" according to some translations. Prachanda has combined Marxist-Leonist-Maoist political theory with local customs to create a unique Nepalese "flavor" of Communism. He has also authored a number of "position papers", which you can read on the Maoist's own website here. In this modern world, nearly all major insurgency groups have their own websites.
On June 1, 2001, the son of King Birendra went on a killing spree, massacring his parents and other relatives, and ended up shooting himself. The shooting is blamed on the apparent refusal by his parents to accept his choice of wife, although there are many inconsistencies to the official version. It is the local version of the assassination of JFK and alternative theories abound. As a result of this, Birendra's brother Gyanendra was crowned the king of Nepal. Interestingly, he had been the king for two months when he was an infant in 1950 shortly before his family returned from exile in India.
The Maoist insurgency began in 1996 in the western part of the country but by 2005 had made large gains in terms of territory controlled. In February 2005, the king sacked the entire government and re-instituted his right to absolute rule, saying it was necessary because his ministers had failed to contain the Maoist insurgency. This at first was met with acceptance by most Nepalese but when political leaders tried to work with the king to re-form a government, the king had them arrested. When journalists wrote critical articles about the king's refusal to re-institute a government, they too were arrested. As the past 14 months have unfolded, more and more people have begun to protest the king's actions and his forces have begun to arrest, censor and repress ever more harshly. One of the king's most common techniques to quash dissent is simply order all telephone networks, including mobile/cell, shut down so that news cannot be reported to the outside world.
Almost since the Maoist insurgency began, other countries were helping arm and supply Nepal's military. The three countries supplying the most military aid to Nepal are India, Britain and the United States. Yet despite this massive influx of weaponry, the Maoist insurgency continues. As I write this, the Maoists control nearly all of the country except for the central valley around Kathmandu and isolated army positions elsewhere.
In September 2005, the Maoists declared a unilateral ceasefire for 3 months, which was later extended by a month. The 7 largest political parties (not including the Communist/Maoist party) in Nepal used this opportunity to press the king for some kind of return to a representative government. They were rebuffed and there were more arrests (the last PM has probably been arrested at least a dozen times since Feb 2005). The Maoists then launched their latest offensive and have been steadily gaining ground although at the cost of many casualties.
India is absolutely frantic to keep Nepal out of the hands of the Maoists. This is largely due to the fact that India is itself fighting several Maoists insurgencies in its own territory. While the Indian and Nepalese Maoists are not strongly allied, it is felt that a Maoist victory in Nepal would fuel the Naxalite movement in India, which is already more deadly than Al-Qaeda. As such, India has been selling weapons to Nepal at only 30% of the true cost and yet the Nepalese government, running out of money due to a sharp decline in tourism revenues, has been unable to pay even those low prices.
Great Britain and the United States, while pooh-poohing the King's dissolution of government and "urging" him to allow elections, have continued to supply Nepal with military aid. China has also sent some military aid, although much less than the 3 other countries. Interestingly enough, Nepal has paid for the weapons they received from China, which further angered India. Some politicians in India are now questioning their government's subsidization for Nepal's weapons purchases.
Prior to 2005, the Maoists were not allied with the 7 major political parties. They still aren't today, but as the old saying goes, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Anti-royalist sentiment is high and the 7 parties have recently allied with the Maoists in conducting a series of general strikes and protests, which have been met with heavyhanded resistance by the state, leaving hundreds wounded and dozens dead this month. Meanwhile the Maoists have been imposing an embargo around the capital, putting a strangehold on trade and causing prices of basic foodstuffs to rise.
And that's where we are today, with protests and strikes going on in the bigger cities and towns, anti-royalist feelings quite high, the Maoists controlling nearly the entire country and the king refusing to do much more than promise reforms at some unspecified date in the future.
I've tried my best to summarize what's going on but as always accuracy is sacrified for brevity. As everywhere else, the issues are complex and not black and white. The Maoists for example, do have a lot of support but they have also taken over some villages and forced obedience upon the locals at gunpoint. Yet at the same time the Maoist leadership has worked for peasant rights and cooperated with the 7 political parties at achieving democratic reform.
Although the Maoists began their insurgency by demanding the installation of a socialist republic, lately they've relaxed their political ideology and at one point even offered to cease fighting if the king would allow the creation of a truly independent, democratic government. This ideas was rebuffed, partly because Nepalese Hindu tradition imbues the king with divine qualities, including his status as a (minor) god. It's hard to negotiate with your peers when you're in power by divine right and divine nature.
Reading the tea leaves, it seems extremely unlikely that the king will remain in power another 6 months unless he makes concessions to the 7 political parties and holds direct elections, or at least sets a firm date for these to happen. Right now the Maoists are making serious military gains and this despite the influx of foreign weaponry. India is steadily increasing its own military budget and is not going to take a Maoist-run state next door lightly at all. If the Maoists take Kathmandu and crush the military, India might intervene at the behest of (and with cooperation of) the political parties.
What is certain is that anarchy and domestic unrest is going to be prevalent in the immediate future. The countries keeping the king on his throne need to start pressuring him to do something before the decision is taken out of his hands for him. I recommend reading the BBC's latest analyst. I also recommend reading this superb blog written by those on the ground, witnessing their country's tumult. It also has great photographs including the one below from this week's protests (and yes those are Communist/Maoist flags):
I've never been to Nepal but I know several people who have, and they all spoke about the incredible natural beauty of Nepal and the boundless generosity and hospitality of its people. It is my sincere hope that the country can find its way soon to a lasting peace.
Cross-posted from the doubleplusungood crimethink website Flogging the Simian
Peace