David Tresilian, in the Nepalese capital Kathmandu, explores the background to violence that last week shattered the peace of this Himalayan kingdom Anyone visiting Nepal, as the present writer did late last year, will have been able to observe at first hand the kind of tensions affecting this landlocked Himalayan country. These tensions hit the international headlines again last week with news of confrontations between the Nepalese security forces and demonstrators shouting pro- democracy slogans in the capital Kathmandu. Following a daylight curfew in the city last Friday, emptying the streets and giving control of the capital to the security forces, demonstrators took to the streets on Saturday and fought running battles with police in the city's historic centre, the police responding by using teargas and arresting an estimated 300 people. Members of Nepal's seven major opposition parties had previously called for a day of demonstrations against the personal rule of the Nepalese monarch, King Gyanendra, who assumed personal rule in February last year, necessary, he said, to combat the Maoist insurgency that has made parts of Nepal virtual no-go areas to the authorities since its beginning in 1996, and particularly since the end of a ceasefire between the government and Maoist forces earlier this year. The Nepalese opposition parties have consistently opposed Gyanendra's personal rule and called for the restoration of democracy. The demonstrations last weekend were designed to call attention to the continuing absence of democracy in the country and to protest against the municipal elections, due to be held on 8 February, which opposition politicians have described as a "farce" designed to reinforce Gyanendra's rule. Press reports have spoken of opposition figures being arrested or put under house arrest before violence broke out on the streets during the weekend. From the images shown on television and from reports appearing on the wires, it seems that the demonstrations and riots that followed them have been unusually bitter by Nepalese standards, police not hesitating to use fire-arms in place of their usual wooden batons to quell the violence. According to the authorities the daylight curfew and ban on all meetings and demonstrations in the capital is necessary in order to combat Maoist forces that have recently been striking closer and closer to the capital and in the surrounding Kathmandu Valley. Maoist forces have long controlled sections of Nepal, particularly in the west of the country where government authority sometimes does not extend far beyond the major towns. But events earlier this month, that saw government forces fighting with Maoist insurgents not far from Kathmandu, resulting in the deaths of 12 policemen, and a bomb attack on a police station at Thankot in the Kathmandu Valley, have led the Nepalese authorities to attempt a clampdown to prevent insurgent forces entering the capital. Last Sunday it was reported that a further 14 Maoists and six members of the security forces had died in clashes at Faparbari, some 180km west of Kathmandu. For the time being, the government's strategy in response to mounting discontent in the country has been to suspend the constitution, putting power in the hands of the king, while acting both against the country's political opposition parties and attempting to crush the Maoist forces in the countryside. Yet, it is not clear that this strategy will work, and it has already been criticised by observers, the European Union, India and Japan condemning last week's violence against pro- democracy demonstrators, and the United States, the United Kingdom and India having either suspended or scaled back military assistance to the Nepalese army after last year's royal coup. Gyanendra is not as popular a figure in Nepal as was his predecessor King Birendra, and rumours still circulate about the circumstances in which he came to the throne in June 2001, following the murder of the king and members of the Nepalese royal family, apparently at the hands of the then crown prince, Dipendra. In Nepal a few weeks ago before the outbreak of the current round of violence I heard many complaints about the declining economic situation, the loss of vital tourism revenues as a result of the continuing political uncertainty and violence, and doubts about the present king's willingness to work with the country's political parties to reach a solution or to bring the Maoists into the political process. This is seen by many as the best way to deal with a movement that apparently has extensive support in many rural areas and shows no sign of going away. Ordinarily, winter is a particularly good time to visit the Kathmandu Valley, taking in the monuments of the three historic capital cities, Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur, while visiting outlying Hindu and Buddhist temples, such as the Swayambhunath "monkey temple" and Boudhanath, from which fine views of the surrounding Himalayan peaks can be enjoyed. Cold at night, but warm and sunny by day, the valley appears to good effect, and trekkers and others usually pour into Nepal in the winter months, either enjoying the cultural and religious amenities that the Kathmandu Valley has to offer, or departing to trek north, possibly, if they are more adventurous, venturing further afield into the west of the country or to the lower reaches of Mount Everest (Sagarmatha) in Solu Khumbu. However, this year tourism numbers were down, and I was told that I was the only visitor to Changu Narayan, an important Hindu and Buddhist pilgrimage site, possibly because of demonstrations in neighbouring Nagarkot following the killing, apparently by a drunken soldier, of a dozen villagers some days before. The continuing violence and political uncertainty is undoubtedly leading to increasing hardship for many Nepalese in an economy that relies to a considerable extent on tourism, 40 per cent of the population living below the poverty line and 80 per cent relying on traditional agriculture in what is one of the world's poorest and least developed countries.
