Crisis of Democracy in Nepal

-Sangeeta Thapliyal, Researcher, IDSA

 

Democracy is the most popular form of representative government in the modern world and the multi-party system its synonym. In Nepal the multi-party democracy, representing the hopes and aspirations of the people desiring democratic ideals, was re-established in 1990, replacing the one-party Panchayat regime. The 1990 revolution in Nepal was a result of the people's upsurge against the Panchayat system of the King which allegedly represented the wishes of the Palace rather than the masses. However, the euphoria soon dissipated when the political heads could not succeed in giving a stable government. There have been as many as three coalition governments and a number of no-confidence motions in the Parliament. The frequent changes of government make a mockery of the goals and ideals for which the leaders led the revolution in 1990 and the people who supported the leaders and strengthened the movement.

Historical Antecedents

The country which was under the authoritarian regime of the Rana Prime Minister, who had usurped power from the ruling Shahs, was again brought under the Shah dynasty in 1950. However, King Tribhuvan had allowed limited democracy by installing an interim Constitution. In 1958, the new Constitution of Nepal was promulgated and the first democratically elected government of B.P. Koirala came to power. The democratic process was interrupted and the rule of the Koirala government cut short by King Mahendra in 1960 on charges of corruption. The King installed his own one-party Panchayat rule from 1960 to 1989. He banned the political parties. There was resentment against the authoritarian regime and the curb on the freedom of the political parties. There was widespread feeling of the Palace being non-representative of the masses, especially when the Marich Man Singh government faced political scandals on charges of misappropriation of funds allotted for the victims of the earthquake in August 1991 or when it reshuffled the Cabinet instead of investigating the deaths of the people in a stampede in the national sports complex in a hailstorm. Also the souring of the India-Nepal trade relations affected the popularity of the Singh government.

In April 1987, Nepal had introduced the work permit for Indian workers in three of its districts, and in early 1989, Nepal provided 40 per cent duty concession to Chinese goods and later withdrew duty concessions from Indian goods in such a manner that the Chinese goods became cheaper than the Indian goods.1 This led to the souring of relations which were already strained over the purchase of Chinese arms by Nepal in 1988. India refused to renew two separate Treaties of Trade and Transit and insisted on a single treaty dealing with the two issues, which was not acceptable to Nepal. A deadlock ensued and the Treaties of Trade and Transit expired on March 23, 1989. The brunt of the closure of the trade and transit points was mainly faced by the common man in Nepal due to the restricted supply of consumer goods and petroleum products like petrol, aviation fuel and kerosene. The industries suffered because of their dependence on India for resources, trade and transit.2 The Government of Nepal tried to deal with the situation by depending on foreign aid from the US, UK, Australia and China. However, the government's strategy to manage the crisis could not appease the people who desired negotiations with India rather than dependence on foreign aid as a solution.3

Taking advantage of the uneasiness amongst the people against the regime and the strained India-Nepal relations, the Nepali Congress (NC) and the left parties blamed the regime for perpetuating the crisis and not taking any serious measures to solve it.4 The people were up in arms against the regime. In December 1989, the NC tried to utilise B.P. Koirala's anniversary by launching a people's awareness programme. The left alliance5 known as the United Left Front (ULF) extended its support to the NC in its campaign for democracy. On January 18-19, 1990, the NC held a conference in which leaders from various countries and members of the foreign Press were invited. Leaders from India attended the conference; Germany, Japan, Spain, Finland supported the movement; and the Embassies of the USA and West Germany were present on the occasion.6 Inspired by the international support and the democratic movements occurring throughout the world after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1989, the NC and the ULF launched a mass movement on February 18 to end the Panchayat regime, and the installation of an interim government represented by various parties and people. On April 6, the Marich Man Singh government was dismissed and Lokendra Bahadur Chand became the Prime Minister on the same day. However, the agitating mob was not satisfied with the change of government as they were not against the Singh government per se but against the partyless system. The people became violent and a few people were killed in an encounter with the Army.7 On April 16, the Chand government was also dismissed and a Royal Proclamation was issued the next day which dissolved the National Panchayat, the Panchayat policy and the evaluation committee and the class organisations. Instead, the proclamation declared "functioning of the political parties" and maintained that "all political parties will always keep the national interest uppermost in organising themselves according to their political ideology."8

The Interim Government

Krishna Prasad Bhattarai became the Prime Minister of the interim government consisting of the members from the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal-United Marxist-Leninist (CPN-UML). Bhattarai declared his main priority was to solve the trade dispute with India and to hold elections.9 However, the first challenge faced by the interim government was to consolidate peace and stability at home. Soon after the change in the political status quo in Nepal, there was widespread violence and mayhem. On April 23, the interim government faced its worst crisis when some people killed the policemen apprehending them as being the agents of the previous regime. In protest, the police force came out on the streets with anti-government slogans--they were controlled with the help of the Army. The Prime Minister requested the King to make a public statement asking people to be restrained and comply with the government orders. Consequently, the King came out with a Press statement which said," In the political environment obtaining in the country, it should be everybody's concern to see multi-party democracy succeed...the government headed by Prime Minister Bhattarai should be fully supported in preparing for early general elections."10

Simultaneously there was a change of government in India with the coming of the coalition government of the V.P. Singh-led Janata Dal. Both governments showed eagerness to resolve the aberration in their relationship. Bhattarai visited India from June 7-11, 1990. He was accompanied by Sahana Pradhan, Minister of Industry and President of the ULF and Devendra Raj Pande, the Minister of Finance. In the Joint Communique signed on June 10, 1990, the trade relations were restored as those prior to April 1, 1990. They also agreed "to cooperate on industrial and human resource development, for harnessing of waters of the common rivers for the benefit of the two peoples and for the protection and management of the environment." Both countries also agreed to respect each other's security concerns and agreed not to allow any activities on their soil inimical to the security of each other. They reiterated their stand committed in the Treaty of Peace and Friendship (1950) and the Arms Assistance Agreement (1965) to have "prior consultations with a view to reaching mutual agreement on such defence related matters which in view of either country could pose a threat to its security."11 The new Constitution drafted by the interim government dropped the Zone of Peace proposal as the foreign policy objective of Nepal. Instead, it believed in maintaining good relations in the economic, social and other spheres on the basis of equality with neighbouring countries and all other countries of the world.

The major achievement of the interim government was the drafting and adoption of the Constitution which considered people as the source of the sovereign authority of the independent and sovereign Nepal and declared the King as the constitutional monarch deriving his authority from the people. It provided for multi-party democracy with the executive power vested in the elected government headed by the Prime Minister, and the legislative functions to the Parliament.12 In accordance with the new Constitution, the elections were held in 1991.

The First Parliamentary Election

The first parliamentary election since the dismissal of the B.P. Koirala government in 1960, was held in accordance with the new Constitution on May 12, 1991. In the 205-member Parliament, the NC secured 110 seats with 37.75 per cent of the votes. The CPN (UML) got 69 seats and with a support of 27.98 per cent became the main Opposition party in the Lower House. The United People's Front of Nepal (UPFN) emerged as the third largest party with 9 seats and secured 4.93 per cent of the total votes. The Nepal Sadhbhavna Party (NSP) secured 6 seats with 4.10 per cent of the people supporting it. The Nepali Democratic Party (NDP) Chand faction got 3 seats in the Parliament and the Thapa faction could secure only one seat.13 The NC came to power with Girija Prasad Koirala as the Prime Minister of Nepal.

Prime Minister Koirala emphasised on maintaining the best possible relations with India and China as his government's first priority.14 In his first state visit to India from December 5-10, 1991, Koirala succeeded in concluding two separate Treaties on Trade and Transit on December 6, 1991, for a period of five and six years respectively. In the Treaty of Trade, the domestic content and labour on Nepalese goods was reduced from 65 per cent to 50 per cent in order to help them in easy entry into the Indian market. Also, the agreement to control unauthorised trade was extended for five years. Koirala was also sympathetic towards India's security concerns. On Nepal's import of arms from China in 1988, Koirala assured India that "such things would not be allowed to vitiate the atmosphere in future" and on the involvement of the Chinese contractors in the road construction in future in the Terai, he said, "Let us bury the past and start with a new vision."15

The Indian Prime Minister, P.V. Narasimha Rao, returned the goodwill visit of Koirala in October 19-21, 1992, and signed a joint communique which discussed among other things how to improve and simplify the export of Nepalese goods to India. Koirala followed an active foreign policy and visited China, Germany, Pakistan, the UN and Tibet. Nepal attended the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit in Dhaka on April 10-11, 1993, and ratified the South Asian Preferential Trade Agreement (SAPTA) on September 27.16 The newly democratic government, beaming with the democratic ideals, gave shelter to 60,000 Bhutanese who were involved in the movement for democracy and human rights in Bhutan. This not only strained Nepal's relations with Bhutan but also became an expensive proposition in the years to come.17

Koirala's apparent closeness to India worked against him at the domestic front. The Opposition parties were against him for his friendly attitude towards India. The CPN(UML) wanted him to follow the policy of equi-proximity in developing relations with both of Nepal's neighbours, India and China. In fact, before his visit to India, the CPN(UML) had submitted a 19-point memorandum to Koirala asking him not to tilt to one particular side in the name of special relationship.18

One of the most controversial incidents that rocked the politics of Nepal was the death of the CPN(UML) General Secretary, Madan Bhandari and the party's organisation chief, Jiv Raj Ashrit, in a jeep accident at Dasdhunga in Chitwan district on May 16. The left Opposition refused to accept the death as an accident and alleged that foul play was involved. Koirala constituted a commission under the former Supreme Court Justice Prachanda Raj Anil to investigate the cause of the deaths. The CPN (UML) described the commission as being partial towards the NC and constituted an independent commission under Khadga Oli. The Anil Commission reported that the deaths were due to the negligence of the driver whereas Khadga Oli considered the victims to have been murdered.19 Consequently, the CPN(UML) took to street demonstrations throughout the country against the Anil Report.

Differences arose between Prime Minister Koirala, the NC leader G.M. Singh, and K.P. Bhattarai, the party President over allocation of portfolios to their own supporters in the Cabinet and in the posts of Ambassador and civil servants. G.M. Singh accused Koirala of corruption and nepotism. This weakened Koirala's position to implement the policies and programmes of the government effectively.20 The differences were further aggravated by the defeat of K.P. Bhattarai from the Kathmandu constituency in the January 1994 by-elections. His supporters blamed Koirala for sabotaging the elections and being instrumental in Bhattarai's defeat. A high level inquiry committee was formed by the central working committee of the NC to investigate the causes of Bhattarai's defeat.21 But this created a gulf between the supporters of Koirala and Bhattarai within the NC.

Wherever there is a struggle for power or differences between political leaders over the implementation of the policies and programmes of the government or even genuine ideological differences, factions appear on the political scene. In fact, in the NC factionalism has been a frequent norm. Even in the mid-Fifties, the difference of opinion over the party leadership between B.P. Koirala and D.R. Regmi led to split of the Nepali Rashtriya Congress into two. B.P. Koirala's magnetic personality brought together the party as one. G.P. Koirala lacked the charisma of B.P. Koirala and he found it difficult to control the party which had two other main leaders.

The Opposition further weakened the government by criticising it for compromising Nepal's national interest by signing the agreement on the Tanakpur Barrage with India without the consent of the Parliament. In order to construct the Tanakpur Barrage, India had to construct an afflux bund about 557 metres high on the Nepalese side in order to save a large area of land from inundation, and India agreed to provide annually 10 MW energy free of cost to Nepal. The Nepali Opposition contended that India was given approval by the government to construct the bund without the matter being discussed in the Parliament.22 In fact, Article 126 of the Constitution seeks ratification by two-third members present at a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament on all agreements signed with foreign governments on peace and friendship, defence and strategic alliance, boundaries and natural resources. The agreement was challenged in the Supreme Court of Nepal which gave its verdict in favour of the petitioner.23 The CPN(UML) introduced a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister in the Parliament hoping to get support from other political parties and 36 supporters of Bhattarai who were dissatisfied with the government. However, the no-confidence motion failed. But during His Majesty's address to the Parliament, the Treasury benches could not pass the vote of thanks due to the absence of the 36 supporters of Bhattarai in the Parliament. Prime Minister Koirala tendered his resignation and advised for a mid-term election, which was accepted by the King.24

The Mid-Term Elections

The general elections were held in November 1994 in which the left alliance led by Manmohan Adhikari secured 89 seats with 42.9 per cent of the total votes polled. The NC came down in popularity and secured 83 seats with 40.4 per cent support. The NDP won 20 seats (9.7 per cent), the Nepal Mazdoor and Kisan Party (NMKP) got 4 seats (0.79 per cent), the NSP won 3 seats (0.59 per cent), and independent candidates won 7 seats (3.4 per cent). Adhikari, with the support of other left parties like the NMKP with 4 members and 2 independents supported by the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal) formed the government.25 The NC secured 83 seats and became the major Opposition party.

Adhikari spelt out his government's priority to strengthen democracy in Nepal, and orient its internal and external policies and economy towards strengthening national integrity, on the basis of national consensus.26 He criticised Koirala and said that his "attempts to sell off the Nepalese public sector units to Indian capitalists have harmed the country."27 Adhikari claimed to pursue friendly relations with both India and China.

Contrary to the expectations that the Communist government would reverse the foreign policy adopted by the democratic Nepali Congress, there was continuity in relations. The ideological differences between India and Communist Nepal did not affect their relationship. In fact, the ineffectiveness of the policy to use China as a countervailing force to Indian influence was visible in 1989 during the lapse of the Treaty of Trade and Transit. The Adhikari government was led by geographical compulsions rather than ideological ones in dealing with its neighbours, India and China.

On his visit to India in April 1995, Adhikari expressed his government's stand to update the friendship treaty of 1950. Though he committed to respect the security interests of India and assured no harm could be done to India from Nepal, he did say that the security concepts were outdated. The obvious reference was towards Articles II and VII of the 1950 Treaty. This was the first time that a Nepalese Prime Minister had openly expressed his desire to update the treaty on the Indian soil. Adhikari also desired to update Article VII of the treaty which allows uninterrupted flow of people from one country to another. Explaining the reason for updating the treaty, he said," India can take a few thousand Nepalese, but Nepal would be swarmed if so many Indians come to Nepal."28

Nevertheless, the Communist government was eager to develop economic ties with India. "I invite Indian industry to invest in Nepal especially in agro-industrial, tourism and hydro-electric based power sectors," Adhikari said at a seminar organised by the Confederation of Indian Industry in New Delhi.29 India and Nepal agreed to cooperate on six new projects, including expansion of Nepal's Bir Hospital, a broad gauge rail link between Raxual and Sirsiya, 18 bridges on the Kohalpur-Mahakali sector of the east-west highway, joint survey for an electric railway linking the east and west of Nepal, supply of two engines and 12 coaches and wagons for a rail link between Jayanagar and Bizalpur and a development project for Greater Janakpur.30 India offered to provide additional facilities for customs clearance at Raxaul for Nepal's containerised transit trade under customs seal to and from Kandla, Bombay and Calcutta. Additional port facilities were also provided to Nepal at the Bombay and Kandla Ports on the same terms as those provided to Indian goods.

Prime Minister Adhikari visited China for five days at the invitation of the Chinese Prime Minister, Li Peng. Four letters of exchange were signed between the two countries under which China agreed to assist Nepal for maintenance of the Pokhara-Baglung highway for a period of one year, and give a radio-therapy instrument to the B.P. Koirala Cancer Hospital at Bharatpur, 10 trolley buses and spare parts and Rs. 460 million for economic and technical cooperation.31

The Communist rule in Nepal was short-lived and the party was ousted out of power in the most dramatic way. Sensing the opposition coming to the Communist rule by the NC and the NDP during the budget session, Prime Minister Adhikari resigned on June 9 and recommended holding of fresh elections to King Birendra.32 King Birendra accepted the proposal and declared November 23 as the election date. Till such time, the Communist Party was asked to run the government.33 However, the other Opposition parties took the matter to the Supreme Court questioning the validity of the Prime Minister's advice for the dissolution of the House.34 In August, a special session of the Supreme Court declared the recommendation of the Prime Minister for the mid-term poll as "unconstitutional" because of the unconstitutional dissolution of the House and reverted the status of the House under clause 42(2) of the Constitution as prior to the dissolution.35 Accordingly, on September 8, the leader of the main Opposition party, Sher Bahadur Deuba, tabled a no-confidence motion against Man Mohan Adhikari under Article 51(2) of the Constitution at the special meeting of the Lower House on charges of political and economic instability and communal disharmony.36 The government lost the no-confidence motion by 88 votes to 107.37 His Majesty appointed Deuba as the next Prime Minister, having the support of 106 members of the House consisting of the NDP and the NSP besides the NC.38

Soon after coming to power, the coalition government announced sweeping changes in the policies of the Marxist government. The government aimed at taking the economy back to the liberal free market from the welfare oriented secularist model and the Marxist populist "build your village yourself" programme.39 Deuba asserted that maintenance of political stability, economic development and sound and impartial administration would be given preference by his government.40

India-Nepal relations took a new turn with the visit of the Nepalese Prime Minister to India in February 1996 when a treaty was signed on the integrated development of the Mahakali Basin inclusive of the construction of the 2,000 MW Pancheshwar power project. Another agreement was signed on the construction of 22 bridges on the Kohalpur-Mahakali sector of the east-west highway.41 The treaty was signed with the consent of all the major parties of Nepal. The left Opposition considered the agreement as a sell out to India and did not want the ruling coalition to take credit for the agreements whose idea was mooted by them during their tenure. However, realising that a rigid stand on opposing the treaty could go against the interests of the people, and in the long run would be against their own interest too, the left parties agreed to ratify the treaty as per Article 126 of the Constitution. The treaty was ratified on September 21, 1996, by 220 votes in favour and 8 against in the 228-member joint session.42

There was a continuation in the foreign policy of Nepal. Deuba reiterated the Nepalese demand to renew the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship. He said that the "the concept of security pact and security umbrella has gone with the end of the Cold War" and "we would like to continue talks on what clauses are to be amended and how the treaty can be updated according to the new realities."43 A Joint Working Committee was set up during Nepalese Foreign Minister Prakash Chandra Lohani's visit to India in August 1996 to find out modalities to monitor the common border between the two countries. Prime Minister Deuba invited Indian entrepreneurs to invest in Nepal in capital intensive technologies, tourism and the hydro-power sector which has immense potential.

However, the inter and intra-party feuds affected the functioning of the government. Deuba found it difficult to appease the coalition partners. Fifteen out of 19 members of the NDP were given ministerial berths in the government. However, five NDP members from the Chand faction tendered their resignations from the coalition in March 1996 and accepted the idea of the no-confidence motion tabled by the CPN(UML) which had offered to make Lokendra Bahadur Chand the next Prime Minister. This was against the party stand which extended support to the coalition.44 The motion was, however, defeated with the NDP men not joining the Opposition in the special session of the Parliament.

The story was repeated in December 1996 when the CPN(UML) again presented the no-trust motion against the government on charges of failure to maintain law and order, corruption and destroying the national economy and misusing the official media. This time, nine NDP men from the Chand faction withdrew support from the government. The motion was defeated because of the absention of the NDP and the left ally members of the NMKP. There were 101 votes in favour of the motion whereas 103 votes are required for the motion to be passed.45 Despite the political drama, Deuba adopted a conciliatory approach towards the dissenters and expanded the Cabinet in which he not only gave ministerial berths to the rebel NDP men but also to Anis Ansari of the NSP and Bhakta Bahadur Rokaya of the NMKP, all of whom had voted against the government.46 This infuriated the NC members who asked for Deuba's resignation.

On February 23, 19 members of Parliament informed the Chief Whip of the party that they would not attend the special session of the Parliament if the size of the Cabinet was not reduced.47 Reacting on this, Deuba, said, "I will reduce the size of the Cabinet after winning a vote of confidence in the House of Representatives in accordance with the understanding reached in the course of my talks with R.P. Bhattarai and G.P. Koirala. I have also had discussions with the leaders of other coalition partners. In this situation, the resignations submitted by some ministers will only obstruct the work of the government. I have, therefore, thanked them for their goodwill gesture and returned their resignations to them. I shall also pay serious attention to the questions and demands of members of the Parliament."48 In the motion of confidence, Deuba could manage only 101 votes in his support. His defeat was ensured by two of his own party men who abstained from the House. Prime Minister Deuba resigned and another coalition headed by Lokendra Bahadur Chand from the NDP took over.

In the new coalition, both the factions of the NDP have joined hands to form the government, along with the CPN (UML) with 90 seats, NSP with 2 and NMKP with one member. Bam Dev Gautam of the CPN (UML) has been appointed as the Deputy Prime Minister of Nepal. Like his predecessors, Chand would find it difficult to keep the coalition under his control because of the ever present factions within the Nepali politics. All the possible combinations and permutations of the political alignments have been tried. Unless a new government emerges after the fresh elections, this uncertainty would prevail.

The present political crisis in Nepal is not something novel to the country. The situation in Bangladesh is no different where democracy has been in a fragile condition since its emergence in 1971. Democratic institutions were sacrificed for narrow political ideals. The present resurgence of democracy in Bangladesh is delicate due to inter-personal discord between the political leaders. Pakistan, with its elected government of Nawaz Sharif, cannot neglect the Army-Bureaucracy nexus. Bhutan has a monarchy which is firm in curtailing any attempt towards democracy. India, with a strong democratic tradition, is also undergoing a crisis with the emergence of new contenders for power with a new support base. However, the basic difference between India and other South Asian countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan is that the democratic system is firmly established in the former while in the latter, it is in the process of getting established. The fear of other non-political institutions taking over the political institutions is near absent in India, whereas military rule, direct or indirect, in Bangladesh and Pakistan did receive recognition and legitimacy. The President in India has always been a constitutional head, whereas the monarch in Nepal has wielded and exerted power. He still has the emotional support of the people. Nepal has emerged from an authoritarian monarchy and it would not be conducive or healthy for the state to waste its democratic ideals through weak and unstable governance.

Conclusion

The democratic Constitution of Nepal laid on the foundation of the mass struggle of the political parties and people appears to be suffering from the inter-party and intra-party conflicts. The leaders have become too obsessed with the gaining and retaining of power and in the process have sacrificed the spirit of the movement. The movement parties need to evolve party discipline to work cohesively as a unit. The party members have to be educated on the party ideology. Instead of owing allegiance to the party leaders, there has to be respect for the party principles. One such occasion was the withdrawal of support to Koirala by the supporters of Bhattarai, sacrificing the party's interests at the altar of inter-personal politics.

The movement parties appear to be more parochial and lack in creating mass awareness to instill a democratic culture.49 All they seem to cultivate is their own mass support, sacrificing their ideals and principles without taking care of cost-benefit analysis. The Nepali society has been bereft of democratic norms where democracy has been planted rather than grown as a political process. Hence, the movement parties and leaders share a responsibility to strengthen the democratic system and show the correct direction.

The political parties are still carrying the labels attached to them prior to the restoration of democracy. For instance, the NC is still considered as pro-India because of its ideological commonality with the latter. During the Panchayat regime, anti-Indianism was a useful tool to instigate the passions of the people against the pro-democratic parties as being anti-national. However, the same yardstick is continuing to measure the performance of the government. The Mahakali Treaty was considered as a sell-out to India and the left Opposition took the matter to the streets to heighten the passions of the masses. This is bereft of any political ideology and based on narrow political gains.

For democracy to work effectively in Nepal, there has to be a balance between the centres of power, viz the monarchy, the bureaucracy and the Parliament. The monarchy in the new role of a constitutional monarch is the new symbol of national unity. The bureaucracy in Nepal which hitherto owed its allegiance to the Palace has to adjust to the new political process. However, the government and political leaders should treat them as an apolitical institution rather than as a loot to distribute the spoils of power and influence. The judiciary in Nepal has shown exemplary independence when it retrogressed the CPN (UML) government's decision for a mid-term poll.

Despite frequent changes in government, Nepal is trying to initiate socio-economic reforms and pursue an active foreign policy. At the regional level Nepal has proposed within SAARC parameters a sub-regional cooperation with Bhutan, Bangladesh and the north-eastern states of India to develop the region through mutual cooperation. With the advent of democracy in Nepal, there is more openness in its negotiations with other countries. However, to keep the benefits of democracy flowing, there has to be internal stability within Nepal. There should be political will to rise above domestic discords and give a meaningful direction to democracy in Nepal which will enable it to convert challenges into opportunities.

 

NOTES

1. Refer The Statesman, August 9, 1989.

2. Refer Narayan Khadga, Politics and Development in Nepal (New Delhi: Nirala Publications, 1994), p. 373.

3. Dhruba Kumar, "Nepal in 1989: A Very Difficult Year," Asian Survey, vol. 30, no. 2, February 1990, p. 139.

4. L.R. Baral, "Indo-Nepal Impasse," in Ramakant and B.C. Upreti eds., Indo-Nepal Relations (New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 1992), p. 123.

5. During the pro-democracy in 1990, the ULF was forRAkrutiLibNakshatraRAkrutiPnjAmritaRAkrutiPnjKiranR6, p. 71.

10. Cited in L.R. Baral, Nepal: Problems of Governance (New Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1993), p. 85.

11. See Rising Nepal, June 11, 1990.

12. Refer the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal (1990), Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs, HMG (Kathmandu: Law Book Management Centre, 1992).

13. The Political Parties and the Parliamentary Process in Nepal--A Study of the Transitional Phase, (Kathmandu: Political Science Association of Nepal, 1992).

14. Speech delivered by Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala on "Nepal's Foreign Policy: An Outline" at the Nepal Council of World Affairs, Kathmandu, August 3, 1991.

15. Koirala expressed his views in a Joint Press Conference with Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in New Delhi. Refer Hindustan Times, December 7, 1991.

16. Refer Krishna B. Bhattachan, "Nepal in 1993: Business as Usual," Asian Survey, vol. 14, no. 2, February 1994, p. 180.

17. Refer L.B. Hamal, Contemporary Nepal: Triumphs and Agonies of the Nepali People (Varanasi: Ganga-Kaveri Publishing House, 1994), p. 194.

18. The Memorandum on CPN(UML)'s position on Nepal-India Relations submitted by Madan Kumar Bhandari to Koirala on October 18, 1992.

19. Bhattachan, n. 16, p. 176.

20. n. 13, p. 14.

21. Ananta Raj Poudyal "Nepal in 1994: The Hung Parliament," Asian Survey, vol. 15, no. 2, February 1995, p. 161-162.

22. Refer n. 18, for CPN(UML) memorandum on Nepal-India relations.

23. Times of India, January 8, 1992.

24. Hindustan Times, November 23, 1994.

25. Kalyan Choudhary "Unique Victory? Frontline, vol. 11, no. 25, December 1994, p. 127.

26. Munmun Majumdar, "1991 Nepalese Elections and After" in P.D. Kaushik ed., New Dimensions of Government and Politics of Nepal (New Delhi: South Asian Publishers, 1996).

27. Asian Recorder, vol. 40, no. 52, December 29-31, 1994.

28. For Prime Minister Adhikari's speech at the India International Centre, New Delhi on April 10, 1995, refer Hindustan Times, April 11, 1995.

29. Indian Express, April 15, 1995.

30. Indian Express, April 13, 1995.

31. Rising Nepal, April 19, 1995.

32. The Telegraph (Calcutta), June 10, 1995.

33. The Telegraph, June 14, 1995.

34. The Pioneer (New Delhi), June 23, 1995.

35. Rising Nepal, August 29, 1995.

36. Rising Nepal, September 8, 1995.

37. Rising Nepal, September 10, 1995.

38. Rising Nepal, September 12, 19, 1995.

39. The Telegraph, September 25, 1995.

40. Rising Nepal, September 12, 1995.

41. Asian Age, February 13, 1996.

42. The Telegraph, September 22, 1996.

43. Hindustan Times, February 14, 1996.

44. Rising Nepal, March 23, 1996.

45. Rising Nepal, December 25, 1996.

46. Times of India, January 10, 1997.

47. Nepal Press Digest, vol. 41, no. 9, March 3, 1997, p. 71.

48. Ibid., p. 74.

49. Refer K. Mojumdar, Democracy in Nepal: Problems and Prospects" in Indian Journal of Nepalese Studies, vol. V & VI, 1995-96, also refer L.R. Baral, "Political System and Elite Behaviour in the Context of India-Nepal Relations", in Kalim Bahadur, Mahendra P. Lama eds., New Perspectives on India-Nepal Relations (New Delhi: Har-Anand Publications, 1995).