Nepal government sacks CoAS, precipitating crisis; PM Dahal resigns; Maoists blame India as being responsible for the crisis; EAM Mukherjee: Developments “internal to Nepal”
  • Share
  • Tweet
  • Email
  • Whatsapp
  • Linkedin
  • Print

    • Despite widespread protests from political parties, coalition partners, President Ram Baran Yadav and the international community, the government carried out its decision to sack the Chief of Army Staff (CoAS) Gen. Katawal on May 4. Earlier, four coalition partners, including CPN-UML, CPN (United) and Sadbhawana Party boycotted the cabinet meeting when the Maoist leaders presented the proposal for sacking him. The CPN-UML and the Sadbhawana Party also pulled out from the government in protest against the action1.

    President Yadav on his part disapproved of the government’s decision stating that it was taken without following “due procedures” and asked the CoAS to continue till further notice. Describing Dr. Yadav's move as unconstitutional, Prime Minster Pushpa Kamal Dahal charged that it had dealt a serious blow to democracy, peace process and the newly-established republican order and asked him to reconsider his decision. Resigning from his post, Mr. Dahal added that a constitutional President had no right to block the decisions of an elected government and accused him of acting under the provocation of some parties2.

    Meanwhile, Lilamani Pokharel, a central secretariat member of Unified CPN (Maoist) claimed that President Yadav overruled the government's decision due to pressure from India3. However, EAM Pranab Mukherjee, in a statement noted that developments in Nepal were “internal to Nepal. We wish Nepal well in its transition to a fully democratic polity and would hope that the present crisis is resolved in a manner which contributes to the early conclusion of the peace process. We would hope that the broadest possible political consensus would make it possible for Nepal to concentrate on the agreed tasks of Constitution making and of democratic transition4.”

    The political crisis led to law and order-related problems as fighting broke out between youth organizations affiliated to different political parties. Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara on his part charged that his party will “fight against” the President’s move as it had “violated constitutional norms [and]… put the peace process in peril5.”

    UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged all political parties to resolve the crisis through “dialogue and consensus” and expressed serious concern over the political crisis following the sacking of the army chief6.

    Top